I grew up with Badgers flying overhead and later on the blink tag and yet this is worse!
I grew up with Badgers flying overhead and later on the blink tag and yet this is worse!
Or are you talking about some of the example sites the article links to like http://thombs.com/Dann_1996-06/noframes.htm in which case yeah I get it lol
When you get older, not only do parts of your body head south and start to refuse to co-operate with the rest of you, your eyesight goes badly off track. Its all a bit disconcerting.
I have never been a fan of "dark mode", even when the www didn't exist. Sometimes magazines would go weird and print an article in reverse - white on black. Dramatic effect or some such bollocks. When the fount (a specific instantiation of a typeface) was small enough and the print blead too badly in the specific copy you are reading it became very tricky to read.
Nowadays we have pixels small enough to be much better than ye olde skoole CRT scan lines and a LED screen has a refresh rate that, even in my florescent tube lit lair (not really), is rock solid.
I can read the site but it is not as easy as possible for me and let's face it: a book with a well chosen typeface and fount is a fair standard of readability and legibility. Why not replicate that in a web page?
Why on earth is the text occupying only 1/3 of my screen widthways? When have you seen a book or mag with 1/3 margins?
The fount is a sans job but it is small and white on black which is hard for me. At least it is very thin so that the glare from the white text doesn't go too fuzzy.
Have a look at Wikipedia. There's a good reason for their design choices - they have to worry about everyone and not just their mates.