4 ms·

When viewing diffs in split view, they should remove the +/- indicators for additions/removals. The red/green highlight is enough. (And for obj-c developers,

When viewing diffs in split view, they should remove the +/- indicators for additions/removals. The red/green highlight is enough. (And for obj-c developers, it's annoying to see lines begin with `++ (void)...` or similar.)

aaronblohowiak 12y ago
> The red/green highlight is enough. For people who can see red and green.
- shurcooL 12y ago
  Or be able to tell left from right.
- jrapdx3 12y ago
  Indeed, there are many who can't distinguish these colors easily, especially males (~5%). Better off using reddish-purple and bluish-green, and also different fonts to indicate changes. That would be a kindness. See http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#assign http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#assign
  - mdo 12y ago
    Whoa, I never thought about that. The colorblindness thing is exactly why we haven't tried to remove the +s and -s, but if there are indeed colors that we could attempt to use, that'd be awesome.
    - jrapdx3 12y ago
      Doing both things allows the maximum number of users to benefit. I'm pretty sure that's what you were getting at. The diff convention of marking inserted and deleted lines by + and - provides a "channel" of info showing text comparisons. If the + lines were also blue-green and the - lines also red-violet then there's two channels conveying the same information. Using colors or not, we'd definitely keep the +/- markers. The highlighting methods are distinct, but line information is the same. The +/- notation will still be useful on a monochrome monitor or printed page. On a spiffy new 2500x1600 display, I'd personally prefer the color output to quickly find what's changed.
  - pimlottc 12y ago
    Wow, thanks for the handy link! I have always wanted a good explanation to provide for quick posts. I created a short URL for easy reference: tinyurl.com/colorassign
  - krzyk 12y ago
    It is more like 10% (depending on the source, e.g. wikipedia provides 8% for males)
    - jrapdx3 12y ago
      Certainly depends on the source. But I believe you are about right. I wrongly trusted memory for the stat. The figure I used applies to a subset, green perception impaired males, which is around 5-6%, depending on level of impairment considered. As you note, including the red perception impaired adds ~2% of males. And about 0.5% of females are also color-vision impaired. Overall it is around 9% of the US population. The prevalence of color-blindness varies by racial/ethnic criteria, and between groups male/female ratio varies quite a bit. Color vision is a very fascinating subject.

aaronblohowiak 12y ago

> The red/green highlight is enough. For people who can see red and green.

shurcooL 12y ago
Or be able to tell left from right.
jrapdx3 12y ago
Indeed, there are many who can't distinguish these colors easily, especially males (~5%). Better off using reddish-purple and bluish-green, and also different fonts to indicate changes. That would be a kindness. See http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#assign http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#assign
- mdo 12y ago
  Whoa, I never thought about that. The colorblindness thing is exactly why we haven't tried to remove the +s and -s, but if there are indeed colors that we could attempt to use, that'd be awesome.
  - jrapdx3 12y ago
    Doing both things allows the maximum number of users to benefit. I'm pretty sure that's what you were getting at. The diff convention of marking inserted and deleted lines by + and - provides a "channel" of info showing text comparisons. If the + lines were also blue-green and the - lines also red-violet then there's two channels conveying the same information. Using colors or not, we'd definitely keep the +/- markers. The highlighting methods are distinct, but line information is the same. The +/- notation will still be useful on a monochrome monitor or printed page. On a spiffy new 2500x1600 display, I'd personally prefer the color output to quickly find what's changed.
- pimlottc 12y ago
  Wow, thanks for the handy link! I have always wanted a good explanation to provide for quick posts. I created a short URL for easy reference: tinyurl.com/colorassign
- krzyk 12y ago
  It is more like 10% (depending on the source, e.g. wikipedia provides 8% for males)
  - jrapdx3 12y ago
    Certainly depends on the source. But I believe you are about right. I wrongly trusted memory for the stat. The figure I used applies to a subset, green perception impaired males, which is around 5-6%, depending on level of impairment considered. As you note, including the red perception impaired adds ~2% of males. And about 0.5% of females are also color-vision impaired. Overall it is around 9% of the US population. The prevalence of color-blindness varies by racial/ethnic criteria, and between groups male/female ratio varies quite a bit. Color vision is a very fascinating subject.