"David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote in message news:ilgt04$298s$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 3/12/11 11:34 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "spir"<denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:mailman.2474.1299967680.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >>> On 03/12/2011 10:16 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>>>> Even with a brightness >>>>>> setting matching the ambient light (many people I know have turned >>>>>> the >>>>>> backlight up way too high), longer blocks of white text on a dark >>>>>> background have the nasty habit of leaving an after-image in my >>>>>> eyes, >>>>>> as >>>>>> demonstrated by this site:http://www.ironicsans.com/owmyeyes/. >>>>>> >>>> That's a very poor example of light-on-dark: It's all-bold, pure-white >>>> on >>>> pure-black. Even light-on-dark fans don't do that. The "white" is >>>> normally a >>>> grey. >>> >>> It's very strange. What the text on this page explains, complaining >>> about >>> light text on dark background, is exactly what I experience when reading >>> text with the opposite combination, eg PDFs. >>> His text holds a link that switches colors (thus suddenly displaying >>> black >>> on white): this kills my eyes! I have to zap away at once. >>> >> >> Yea, I have a hard time looking at that version, too. And I didn't even >> see >> it until after I was away from the page for about an hour and then came >> back. >> >> There are also other reasons that both versions of that page are hard to >> read: >> >> - All bold. >> - All justified (I honestly do find justified text harder to read than >> left-algned. And the difference is much more pronounced with narrower >> text >> columns, such as that page uses.) >> - One loooong paragraph. > > Oh, really? I guess there is no way this site could be a fabricated > example for clearly demonstrating the effect, right? >
Doesn't matter, he's still constructed a blatant strawman. Those three things I mentioned, plus the fact that he's using maximum contrast, all make text harder to read *regardless* of positive/negative contrast. And *despite* that, he's still using those tricks in his attempt to "prove" something completely different (ie, that light-on-dark is hard to read/look-at and shouldn't be used). It's exactly the same as if I made chicken noodle soup with rotted rancid chicken, tossed in some dog shit, and then tried to claim: "See! Chicken makes food taste terrible!" ("But you used bad ingredients..." "Well excuse me for trying to clearly demonstrate the effect!") Even if it weren't a strawman, it's still exaggerated and unrealistic - and demonstrating that an excess of something is bad does not indicate that ordinary usage is bad (salt and fat are perfect examples).