About a year ago I embarked on creating a color scheme for a project and I loved it so much I began using it for everything. I decided to make an official repo for it to share with the world.
Anyhoo, hope y'all enjoy it.
Problem is, it makes everything super fugly and eye-straining for everyone else (considering no dark reader allowed anymore). And it's much harder to see which parts are important and which aren't. Because everything is super bold and screamy. I didn't buy a 4.7 million colour display to only show 10 of them. I tend to get headaches from really high contrast, I prefer using a softer theme like solarized.
The 0.5% of employees with vision issues would be equally well served with a browser plugin that adjusts it for their particular issue. Not everyone with visual difficulties has the same issue, after all. Some people can't see certain colour combinations so they need to be avoided or modified. Some just see blurry so they need large fonts but probably even larger than they are now. Some can't see at all and they're not helped by this either, they just need a braille ruler and good alt tags on images. Which is something nobody in the company seems to care about. They just care about things that are super noticeable.
We used to have a nice gentle email signature that is now all kindergarten colours and huge fonts and it's just so in your face. For something that nobody ever reads anyway. It was de-emphasised for a reason, so people know it's there but that it's not important information unless you're really looking for it. If you really want to read it you can always just highlight it. Or switch to plain text mode.
Ps: I'm not against catering for disabilities at all, but I'd like to see a more tailored approach. Not trying to fix one thing and breaking it for everyone else. I don't set my phone on huge text mode either but I'm happy it's there for people that do need it.
“Too much” contrast means young hipsters complain it burns their eyes.
Even the highest standards for readability leave a comfortable range for expressing creativity (and soft colors), it’s not like they require #000 on #FFF.
False. Someone with some kind, but not everyone with any kind. This broad stroke that you've just painted is counter to the goals of accessibility.
> “Too much” contrast means young hipsters complain it burns their eyes.
Let's not trivialize disabilities we don't even know exist. But if you wanted to research this, you can look up the term "photophobia" or "light sensitivity".
> Even the highest standards for readability leave a comfortable range for expressing creativity (and soft colors), it’s not like they require #000 on #FFF.
Again, false.
Let's consult Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision:
> 2.4.2 Light and Glare Sensitivity
> Many people with low vision have extreme sensitivity to light (called photophobia). Bright light makes it difficult or impossible to see, and causes eye pain and headaches. For some people, the normal brightness of a computer screen with a light background is not readable and painful. They need to change the background to a darker color. Glare sensitivity is common with age-related vision changes and cataracts.
> [...]
> 3.1.2 Text Contrast
> As mentioned in the Light Sensitivity section, some people need low brightness, especially for backgrounds. Some people who need low brightness for backgrounds also need low brightness overall and thus need low brightness text.
> Other people need high contrast between text and background, including many older people who lose contrast sensitivity from ageing. Some read better with dark text on light background.
> For some people, common color combinations or colors from a limited color palette work fine, for example, black text on white background or the inverse with white text on black background. Other people need to select more specific background and text colors. For example, people who need low brightness overall, need to select the specific background and text colors that provide sufficient contrast for them yet not too high brightness. Readable and optimal color combinations differs vastly among individuals and can even vary for one individual depending on conditions such as fatigue and lighting.
(emphasis mine)
Source: https://w3c.github.io/low-vision-a11y-tf/requirements.html
Ok, fair. But I don’t think it’s an accident that all the people I hear complain about contrast being too high are 20-something engineers.
There’s nothing about good contrast that says it needs to blaze your eyes off. You can have perfectly good contrast with a completely black background and minimal amounts of light. Like I said, there’s no reason that “contrast” needs to mean black on white.
I agree it's not really a content issue as much as a hardware issue. LCD screens have a limited backlight range and seem to be optimised for peak brightness not lowest brightness. Probably because big numbers sell better on paper. Even reviews only talk about top brightness these days.
My screen only tops around 200 nits and the lowest setting is way too high.
Luckily my display doesn't do that. It's also very hard to figure out through reviews so I'm glad it doesn't.
I was thinking about such a filter. But I haven't seen them for sale, I just know they exist (I was thinking about ND filters used in photography). But I wasn't sure if they exist at this size.
Yeah, I'm also PWM sensitive. You can buy devices which measure it fortunately but I've been making do with a phone camera on a high/brief shutter speed.