> All I know is that some directories look like an "explosion in a > paint factory" or "angry fruit salad". I wonder why the die-hard monochrome users keep arguing from a "but it isn't pretty" point of view. It's not supposed to be pretty, it's supposed to augment the information presented.
> The colours convey absolutely no information to me. I need to use > other information to figure out what the colours are trying to tell > me. And that's fine and how it's supposed to be. The colors helped drawing your attention to it quickly. I don't think anybody here is arguing that colors would directly encode high-level diagnostic information. To the color-blind people, I get it, it's counter productive for you. However I don't get the feeling that anybody is trying to enable colors unconditionally, or by default even. I also have issues with the "I can't tell apart colors, so nobody may use colors" mindset. We shouldn't put up artificial barriers for color-blind people (nor any other disability), which in this case would mean "colors, if present, shouldn't be enabled by default" (that said, our installer is blue...) but that's about the extent of it IMHO.
