On 3/13/11 12:14 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
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).
Calm down, this isn't a religious war or something, at least not for me. If you want to try to prove everybody else »wrong«, feel free to do so, but I just picked that example because it neatly illustrates the effect I experienced when I was experimenting light-on-dark color schemes in my text editor/IDE…
David
