Yaseen Mowzer <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric Wong <[email protected]> writes: > > I find #000 on #fff too intense for large swaths of text. > > Maybe it's just a problem with my monitor having too low contrast... I > see a lot of websites don't actually use #000 for text but something > closer to #222 or #333. Although for some reason it felt much worse on > public-inbox than other sites.
Yes, #222 or #111 might be better for users with >=16-bit color; but I also don't want to exclude users with <=256 color displays. > I should probably install a plugin or get a better monitor instead of > trying to fix the rest of the world :P Given I care about users with 8-bit color, I think monitors with worn-out elements deserve the same consideration. Of course, there are plugins (Stylus for Firefox?) and browsers like dillo support custom colors. > > Would #030 or #003 (dark green/blue) work for you? > > I think it would be strange for the main text to be a color other than > black. Not really, black is the most difficult color to reproduce accurately. Ballpoint pens are often blue, and some of the inexpensive "black" ones are purple or gray. I've seen inkjet printers use dark brown/green or purple if the printer is out of black ink. Sometimes getting paper with black text wet reveals it as a dark purple. Anyways, if you could give an opinion on a darker color that still works within the 216-color limitation, I will likely merge it. Thanks for bringing this up. -- unsubscribe: one-click, see List-Unsubscribe header archive: https://public-inbox.org/meta/
