On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:54 PM, <hyazin...@emailn.de> wrote: > Youtube does dark background for saving energy once a year. >
I'm pretty sure that isn't true. Not only does it not make any sense whatsoever, but I can't find anything to back that up. Can you support that claim? So, not only at least one big website uses dark background, it's also good > for the environment. > That's not true <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-black-is/>. > Additionally, functionality really isn't a problem with current dark > background. Reasons: > - mostly there is less text / no huge text deserts > - the text builds a high contrast to the background, especially thanks to > bold typo and because the text is big enough > - it's not that colors on the website are so onesided and intense, that > uncomfortable compensation effects are happening (looking on red > background, switching to white background, seeing green although no green > is there) > If despite of all that it just has to be made more functional, I'd rather > make the space between the letters a tiny bit bigger, and if that's not > enough than would redo and instead of that choose a slightly bigger text > size. > Finally, asthetic design does matter. You eat with your eyes first, and > the current dark background as it is is the perfect reflection in design of > a key component of the freenet: The darknet. Yeah, that's about as convincing as your previous arguments, one of which is almost certainly factually incorrect, and the other is definitely factually incorrect. Ian. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
