Am 28.06.2017 um 00:44 schrieb Vladimir Panteleev:
On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 at 22:34:39 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I was specifically trying to steer away from a random
propose-and-comment approach, because I think we can do a lot better
if we first reduce the size of the design space using objective
measures. If we can agree to some extent that this makes sense, I can
give it a go and propose something concrete, too.
Please do. I think your rules make sense, but it's difficult to judge
them without trying the task and finding out how well each can be
satisfied without making the task impossible.
If the default goes from well readable but not highlighted to barely
readable in parts, then that would IMO be a pretty big failure. The
minimum goal should be to not make things worse overall on any of the
most common setups.
That's a good point. Unfortunately, that leaves very few options. If we
are to stick to the tenets, we would need to remove nearly all use of
color, even from the "Error" and especially "Warning" labels, as those
are close to unreadable there.
If they are only and consistently used for "Error" and "Warning", then
that's acceptable, because it's the color already unambiguously defines
the text. But in general I think that the possibilities are indeed very
limited if only the 16 base colors are allowed.
Um, I don't think that's possible.
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
The question is how many users are actually ruled out by this.
Benefiting a large number of people at the expense of a few is a
reasonable approach in this case.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.
I mean if, by switching to more colors, we rule out few people, but are
able to provide a much better value for the (presumed) majority of
people with differently colored, but 256-color capable terminals, then
it may still be worth the trade-off (as long as those other terminals
don't get blown apart at least).
