Very poor vision level, which reader?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Hey Penguin! Now that you are a MOD, any chance of "accidentally" switching this whole website to that theme?

Done.

BOb

[DixieGal]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Done.

BOb

Ahhh, much better! Thanks!

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

dear god please no !!!

despite what some might think, it's actually MUCH more tiring for the eyes to read light text on a dark background for any length of time, with some exceptions.

Why do you say that? Can you point to any studies?

Do you remember Dsiegel's web wonk? He was a typographer that had a web site on how to make a web site usable and readable. He talked about this issue, colors and contrast. He didn't suggest a dark foreground with light foreground, but did suggest a muted color for the background.

The web site isn't up any more but I'm pretty sure it can be found in the internet archive. While the typography stuff all applies today the layout methods he specified are very arcane now that we have the new CSS 2.x and HTML 4 stuff.

Yes, here it is, I found it. http://web.archive.org/web/200604280...egel.com/tips/

Read the Netscape Background Colors test topic.

It seems the current dsiegel.com is a different person. THe about me in the way back machine says:

Hi. I'm David Siegel, author of Web Wonk. I am a type designer, typographer, writer, and web-site designer. I received a Master's degree in Digital Typography from Stanford University in 1986, where I studied under Donald Knuth and Charles Bigelow. I spent a year at Pixar, then I started working for myself, designing typefaces like Tekton and Graphite, both of which are available from Adobe Systems.

But the current web site says:

My name is David Siegel. I'm an Internet entrepreneur and author, husband and father, world traveler and vegetarian. Professionally, I'm an investor with concentrations on Cambodia and the Semantic Web. I believe the Semantic Web will transform our lives in the next ten years, and I'm going to be part of it by explaining how it works to people. Watch for my new book on the Semantic Web in 2009.

Although in both his sites title is still Casbah.

BOb

[folecr]

Would the text to speech capabilities of some of the readers interest you?

I know that the Kindle 2 has them although I've never used a Kindle so I have no idea what it's like. Perhaps someone here who owns one could comment?

[Patricia]

That won't be possible until the Kindle 2 is released.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Why do you say that? Can you point to any studies?

there are tons of articles on this topic, and you can find some to support any viewpoint, particularly since the overwhelming majority of them are simply based on the personal preferences of the writer. however here are two which support what i was saying earlier :
http://blog.tatham.oddie.com.au/2008...is-a-bad-idea/

However, most studies have shown that dark characters on a light background are superior to light characters on a dark background (when the refresh rate is fairly high). For example, Bauer and Cavonius (1980) found that participants were 26% more accurate in reading text when they read it with dark characters on a light background.

Reference: Bauer, D., & Cavonius, C., R. (1980). Improving the legibility of visual display units through contrast reversal. In E. Grandjean, E. Vigliani (Eds.), Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals (pp. 137-142). London: Taylor & Francis

(emphasis mine)
and an interesting explanation which is highly pertinent to my own case :

People with astigmatism (aproximately 50% of the population) find it harder to read white text on black than black text on white. Part of this has to do with light levels: with a bright display (white background) the iris closes a bit more, decreasing the effect of the "deformed" lens; with a dark display (black background) the iris opens to receive more light and the deformation of the lens creates a much fuzzier focus at the eye.

as it happens, i have astigmatism, although i hadn't heard about this effect until today. when i try to read light text on a dark background, the text seems to vibrate and i in only a few seconds i start to feel a bit dizzy (like motion sickness) and my head starts to hurt.
another good article :
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archiv...s_readability/

and then there is the separate but equally important problem of accessibility to people with colour blindness :
http://accessibility.psu.edu/color.html
you can use online simulators to see what different colour schemes look like to people with colourblindness, like this one http://www.etre.com/tools/colourblindsimulator/
or this one http://www.tsi.enst.fr/~brettel/colourblindness.html

Do you remember Dsiegel's web wonk? He was a typographer that had a web site on how to make a web site usable and readable. He talked about this issue, colors and contrast. He didn't suggest a dark foreground with light foreground, but did suggest a muted color for the background.

The web site isn't up any more but I'm pretty sure it can be found in the internet archive. While the typography stuff all applies today the layout methods he specified are very arcane now that we have the new CSS 2.x and HTML 4 stuff.

Yes, here it is, I found it. http://web.archive.org/web/200604280...egel.com/tips/

Read the Netscape Background Colors test topic.

that actually supports what i was saying : the best readability can be obtained using dark text on a light background. the fact that he suggests a pastel colour rather than pure white goes back to the problem of luminosity which i mentioned : a white background on a computer, because the screen is *emitting* light, is very fatiguing for the eyes, but it's because of the luminosity, not the contrast ratio or colour scheme. this is why reducing the luminosity of the screen is very important (the default settings on most screens are like staring directly at the sun, it's like the manufacturers have some sort of sadistic desire to torture your eyes), and a pale colour will seem somewhat less luminous even without modifying the screen settings, and therefore be more comfortable. you should take the time to adjust the brightness settings on your screen and keep in mind that the optimal setting will vary depending on the ambiant light, so it won't be the same on a bright day as on a dark overcast day or at night.

[AbFabGab]

Quote:
People with astigmatism (aproximately 50% of the population) find it harder to read white text on black than black text on white. Part of this has to do with light levels: with a bright display (white background) the iris closes a bit more, decreasing the effect of the "deformed" lens; with a dark display (black background) the iris opens to receive more light and the deformation of the lens creates a much fuzzier focus at the eye.
==========

This would explain why I can't drive at night..
(well, I can but I choose not to because it's harder for me to see-
everything is blurrier)

I have large astigmatism in one eye plus two very myopic eyes.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

(the default settings on most screens are like staring directly at the sun, it's like the manufacturers have some sort of sadistic desire to torture your eyes)

Yes, I have heard that this is the case. But, I also heard it is the "show floor" brightness setting. This is also used on TV's. Since the stores are so brightly lit they have to turn the brighness up all the way to be able to view the image in the store.

I certainly do have my brightness down, about a notch lower than half. That actually is the maint thing I don't like about my iMac... it has the glossy screen. I am probably going to get a new monitor with a matte screen and make that the primary display.

(Either that or get some curtains for the computer room. To cut the glare during the day.)

BOb

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Yes, I have heard that this is the case. But, I also heard it is the "show floor" brightness setting. This is also used on TV's. Since the stores are so brightly lit they have to turn the brighness up all the way to be able to view the image in the store.

hm. well, i suppose that makes sense, except that most monitors people buy are not display monitors, so it seems a bit silly to have that be the default factory setting, rather than a more normal human one and just adjust the ones that *are* on display. but when have manufacturers ever been logical...

I certainly do have my brightness down, about a notch lower than half. That actually is the maint thing I don't like about my iMac... it has the glossy screen. I am probably going to get a new monitor with a matte screen and make that the primary display.

(Either that or get some curtains for the computer room. To cut the glare during the day.)

yes, my brightness setting is about that during the day as well, although at night sometimes i have to lower it further or it makes my eyes hurt. glare is definitely a problem ; you might look into getting a hood for your monitor to block the glare on three sides. or you could make one, out of black cardstock. i have a window just behind me, and even though it doesn't get direct light sometimes glare is a problem, but i prefer not to close the curtain because the bright monitor in a darker room is less comfortable than a bit of glare for me (most of it is blocked by my big head anyway ). but i have sensitive eyes ; maybe other people don't mind that.

[Mr.Magoo]

I don't know about scientific opinions but only my own experience.
Of course, mine is a very particular case, so I assume it cannot be generalized.
I've made many, many, many tests with colors on my screen (it's well calibrated and not "full brightness" as zelda_pinwheel suggests), and I prefer "inverted colors".
As pilotbob says: "The reason being that the dark background colors project less light and cause less eye strain".
The excessive light of white backgrounds blinds me.

But I don't like "pure" inverted colors, I mean white text on black background. Instead, I use an slightly dimmed white on a mid-dark gray background and it works the best for me.

There are some drawbacks, though. The most of computer programs are intended for white backgrounds and have not only black text but also dark blue, green, red ... Windows XP (I don't know about Vista) and most usual applications (Office, Outlook, Internet Explorer, etc.) don't convert these secondary colors or, even worse, convert only text or only background, so I often get dark blue on dark gray, white on white, or black on dark gray, resulting unreadable. But I have to live with that.

I'm just trying Kubuntu Linux with KDE4. It seems to be much more configurable.

Anyway, As I say at the beginning, this is my personal experience.

Thank you very much for your interest in my troubles.