"David Nadlinger" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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. >
I'm not upset or worked up about it at all (emotional state usually doesn't come across in text very well anyway, so it's best not to make assumptions about it). I was just explaining how that page fails to make the point that it tries to make. I realize you only brought it up to help describe a certain effect, and naturally that's fine, but I was objecting more to the page itself rather than the appropriateness of your reference to it.
