[HN Gopher] GitHub Releases Dark Mode
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub Releases Dark Mode
Author : m1
Score : 459 points
Date : 2020-12-08 17:31 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| [deleted]
| deadmik3 wrote:
| Nice to see but it's too contrast-y for me compared to the stylus
| theme I've already been using which honestly looks better
| https://github.com/StylishThemes/GitHub-Dark
| mssundaram wrote:
| Same! I use Dark Reader and I much prefer it's take on Github
| than this - way too much contrast. "Dark" doesn't need to mean
| BLACK. A nice example is overreacted.io - a navy/blue dark
| theme.
| mr_custard wrote:
| Agree - This GitHub theme is unfortunately too dark. Which is a
| shame, because I was genuinely excited to read that GH has
| released a dark mode.
|
| I use many dark mode themes and have even created them. The
| important thing to constantly keep in mind whilst authoring a
| dark them is: resist the urge to go "too dark" and contrasty,
| and to keep checking against a known "good" reference.
|
| If any GitHub execs are reading this, and would like to see an
| example of what we're talking about here, then the JetBrains
| "Darkula" theme in IntelliJ is a well done dark theme.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Yup. For me the Sublime default theme is perfect, whereas I
| find this new GitHub redesign to be basically unreadable.
| bnt wrote:
| This feels more inline with Windows Dark Mode (since Github is
| a Microsoft company).
| ksec wrote:
| Well since the Settings has both System Default and Dark
| Mode, I wish System Default would be matching closer to macOS
| Dark Mode which is Dark Greyish colour when user is on macOS.
| SquareWheel wrote:
| System Default likely just infers dark mode preference via
| prefers-color-scheme. It doesn't seem to be a unique theme.
| abdusco wrote:
| In case anyone's interested, it's possible to schedule light
| and dark themes on Windows via this app:
|
| https://github.com/adrianmteo/Luna
|
| I usually prefer the dark theme but some websites detect that
| Windows is in dark mode (using `prefers-color-scheme: dark`
| in CSS) and fail to provide a way to toggle the dark theme
| off. This makes it difficult to read the text during daytime.
|
| Scheduling dark theme on & off and combining it with Dark
| Reader's automation, it's nice being able to have all
| websites switch to dark mode at night.
| Zarel wrote:
| How do you combine it with Dark Reader's automation? I
| don't see any automation option in Dark Reader. :(
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| I believe the CEO stated an intention to add more themes for,
| say, colorblind people, so there might be additional options
| coming.
|
| Edit: Found the link.
| https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1330924323952091137
| bluefox wrote:
| GitHub have the gall talking about accessibility while
| flinging their octotentacles, dragging users screaming down
| to the firey pits of JavaScript hell.
| viraptor wrote:
| What are the actual issues? JS does not necessarily mean
| lack of accessibility on its own.
| bluefox wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25076987
| viraptor wrote:
| Accessibility doesn't really mean catering to people who
| choose to disable JS in their browser. There's whole set
| of standards for providing accessibility with dynamic web
| https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/
| userbinator wrote:
| "Standards" written by the same groups who want to
| control every aspect of your online life by shoving JS
| down everyone's throat?
|
| Of course they'll redefine "accessibility" to further
| their goals...
| bluefox wrote:
| It wasn't always like this. Look at WCAG version 1.0 [0]
| section 6.3. It's very sensible advice. Then through the
| magic of "Web 2.0" and bigco work on "Accessible Rich
| Internet Applications" the advice was made to disappear
| [1].
|
| Nowadays when you mention the issue on the web, instead
| of trying to understand and imagine low-powered devices,
| limited browsers, restricted environments, or maybe just
| security-concious people who are effectively disabled by
| this "Web 2.0" bullshit, people claim that you're using
| the term "accessibility" wrong.
|
| [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ [1]
| https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
| bobthepanda wrote:
| No, accessibility is already defined as a legal concept
| that has been around since before the advent of the
| Internet, because it also applies to our physical
| infrastructure.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Choosing not to run javascript and being unable to use
| some parts of GitHub isn't an accessibility issue in the
| same way that deciding to use ChromeOS isn't an
| accessibility issue when trying to run desktop
| applications that are only built for Windows/MacOS - it's
| just a technical requirement.
| bluefox wrote:
| Says you.
| viraptor wrote:
| And every common description of web accessibility. From
| WAI to Wikipedia to common courses. I'm not saying it's
| good design or the right direction for GitHub. Just that
| accessibility is important and disabling-js is not really
| it.
|
| Specifically: disabling JS - your choice; having a
| disability - not your choice.
| bluefox wrote:
| In my case, yes, it is by choice. But do you think
| everyone has a choice? JavaScript is a power-hungry,
| memory-hungry, bloated, security nightmare. Requiring
| JavaScript for basic functionality (that was available
| not that long ago!) is simply hostile.
| zaptheimpaler wrote:
| Yes most consumer devices run the same 3 browsers all of
| which run Javascript just fine. I get you don't like it,
| but that doesn't mean its an accessibility problem.
| j-james wrote:
| I would suppose the above user is referring, rather
| snidely, to GitHub not loading commit information without
| JavaScript. GitHub's JavaScript use is really quite
| minimal, and certainly nothing like GitLab.
| userbinator wrote:
| The fact that it used to work perfectly fine without JS
| is proof enough that it don't need it. But I guess the
| average web deviloper is more concerned with stuffing
| one's resume with the latest fads than _real_
| accessibility and efficiency.
| pkage wrote:
| There's a lot of hostility on HN towards web developers.
| "Real accessibility" doesn't really have much to do with
| Javascript or not, it has everything to do with ensuring
| the site is screen reader accessible, ensuring the site
| is available for low-vision users, and ensuring that the
| site is available at slow bandwidths. Given that the site
| caters to those already (good kb navigation, stated
| future support for color-blindness, and the site is
| ~300kb/page) I think that they're in pretty good shape.
|
| Ultimately, choosing not to run JS is your decision--but
| a vanishingly small percentage of users choose to do
| that, and as a company your focus is on providing
| features for the product, and not supporting every single
| user and their unique configurations. Should Github
| explicitly support terminal-based browsers like Lynx as
| well?
|
| Plus, you can avoid 99% of the github website just by
| using git from the command line (or your favorite client)
| and using their CLI tool for repo creation/etc.
| p1necone wrote:
| You seem to be using a different definition of
| accessibility than the commonly accepted one. What
| disability precludes the use of javascript?
| viraptor wrote:
| Please take a step back for a moment and imagine that
| you're one of the blind users of HN running into this
| comment. Reading that GitHub devs who took the time to
| actually support some assistive technology on their
| website (not sure how well, but see the existing aria
| attributes in the source) and track their support
| (https://government.github.com/accessibility/) don't care
| about "real accessibility" by not catering to what
| technology choices you prefer.
| GordonS wrote:
| I've been using a Firefox plugin that let's you style sites
| with alternative CSS for years to achieve something similar on
| GitHub (I forget the name, but it is pretty popular) - every
| now and then something on the site looks a bit weird until the
| styles are updated to keep in sync with GitHub tho.
|
| I personally think GitHub have got this just right, I love it!
| (I'm red/green colour blind tho, and do tend towards preferring
| a bit more contrast).
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Yea, I just tried it too. WOW that is hard on my eyes.
|
| It feels move like "invert colors" than a dark theme. Toning
| the white down would be a huge improvement.
| csunbird wrote:
| Wish HN had a dark mode setting as well.
| jeduardo wrote:
| If you're using any chrome-based browser, you might want to
| enable the "force dark mode for web content" flag under
| chrome://flags. Some few websites look weird, but the vast
| majority becomes pleasantly darker. HN looks good. I cannot
| live without this option anymore.
| lobo_tuerto wrote:
| You can try a browser extension like: Dark Reader.
| thrill wrote:
| Dammit man, I can only give you one upvote.
| flixic wrote:
| Github is now removed from my Dark Mode Safari extension. Only
| two sites remain: Hacker News and Wikipedia.
| lucideer wrote:
| Wikipedia support supplying your own custom.css which is
| applied whenever you're logged in.
|
| See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:GlobalCssJs
| MH15 wrote:
| There have been some pretty solid userstyles for HN. There was
| a big thread about it a while back:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23197966
|
| Many really good themes you can install with Stylish or
| whatever extension works with your browser.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Browser extensions aren't universal, unfortunately :(
|
| I often use all of Safari, FireFox, Chrome, and maybe one or
| two mobile browsers in a day, and the dissonance from having
| different styles on the same site in different browsers is
| worse than having to suffer through not having dark mode for
| me.
| boogies wrote:
| Stylus should work on Firefox, Chrome, and mobile Firefox.
| dheera wrote:
| Install a browser plugin that allows you to inject custom CSS.
| simias wrote:
| I use this extension: https://github.com/plibither8/refined-
| hacker-news
|
| It offers dark mode and many useful quality-of-life UI tweaks.
| plibither8 wrote:
| RHN's dev here - just saw this. Thanks :)
| Forbo wrote:
| I'm not understanding how to apply the dark mode using this
| extension. I see that it has it in the "Custom CSS" field,
| but what then needs to be done to apply the CSS? This is
| probably really obvious to most of the userbase, but I'm
| pretty inept when it comes to anything pertaining to web
| design.
|
| Also, the text in the extension is nigh unreadable. I have to
| highlight it all to get enough contrast to make it visible.
| This is on Firefox, anyone else have this issue?
|
| https://ibb.co/Hdz6gP2
| dont__panic wrote:
| I have that same problem. I think hitting the "dark mode"
| CSS preset (which pastes the CSS, unreadable of course,
| into the edit box) and then pressing Enter actually let the
| style stick. I also had to refresh my HN pages for that
| particular change to take effect.
| plibither8 wrote:
| Hi! I'm the developer of the extension.
|
| The Firefox version needs a _lot_ of work in the popup 's
| CSS to make it visible. FF made some internal changes and
| ever since then it has stopped displaying text properly.
|
| I'll get onto it soon.
| Forbo wrote:
| It looks like there might be a bug or two that is getting
| ironed out. The many eyes are working!
|
| https://github.com/plibither8/refined-hacker-
| news/issues/84
| thehermit wrote:
| The coloring on diffs needs some work. The green is almost
| invisible with dark mode enabled.
| __s wrote:
| It's fine on my screen. But yes, my experience with dark mode
| is that it requires a finer tuning by the user, done right it's
| superior to light mode, but the threshold of success is tighter
|
| You can check your gamma settings, but that's a bit of an ask
| if you have everything setup just right. Green line numbers are
| pretty indicative either way
| dpix wrote:
| Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather all these tech companies that
| implemented dark mode over the last year or so had worked on new
| features or bugs instead...
| [deleted]
| ExcavateGrandMa wrote:
| it's not dark it's deep blue :D
| pppschmitt wrote:
| Is it just me or does the activity feed still use a white
| background (and therefore almost unreadable) on Firefox?
| alphachloride wrote:
| Having tried it for a few minutes, I prefer the light theme.
|
| I also reverted back to light themes for my text editors - I felt
| it was easier to focus on dark-on-light text than the other way
| around.
| bnt wrote:
| I have mild astigmatism and dark themes simply don't work for
| me. macOS dark mode gives me nausea. For me it's old school
| plain white IDE.
| AltruisticGapHN wrote:
| Doesn't have to be white though, I've used anoff white for as
| long as I remember. Say #f8f8f8, or a warmer tone. i think
| there is a big difference in terms of luminosity by just
| lowering the rgb a few notches.
| JoyrexJ9 wrote:
| Interesting. I have astigmatism too, but never had any idea
| it would have any bearing with something like a colour
| scheme. I'm not sure I like the new dark theme and now I'm
| wondering if it's just because it's new or because of
| astigmatism
| the_other wrote:
| I have about 40degree astigmatism, but also myopia. I blow
| hot & cold with dark mode. It's definitely NOT the "one true
| way" that it seems to be for other devs. It hadn't occurred
| to me that my astigmatism might affect perception in dark
| mode differently. I'll look out for that. Thanks!
| baq wrote:
| Paper is black on white for a reason... I never understood
| dark modes and my eyesight is surprisingly good (as in, no
| glasses needed) after staring at computer screens for a
| good part of past 20 years. Am I just old?
| netcraft wrote:
| Is this true? that its for a reason other than its easier
| to make dark colored ink and to bleach paper white rather
| than the other way around?
| nullsense wrote:
| Dark mode is bad for your eyes in a light environment as
| it causes them to work harder. Its good in the dark
| though, hence the name. Its a mode that should be used in
| the dark.
|
| I find the whole dark mode fashion pretty unfathomable. I
| use it only in the dark and it's wonderful in that case,
| but people seem to want it on all the time for all the
| things.
| bigbubba wrote:
| You say you can't fathom it, but then you seem to
| subsequently fathom it. Dark themes are nice in dark
| rooms. If you assume most people spend most of their
| screen time in well lit environments, then puzzlement
| might seem warranted. But why assume something which
| leads to perplexing conclusions? The obvious answer is
| that people who prefer dark themes also tend to work in
| dark rooms.
|
| When I'm on my balcony in the sun, I use a light theme.
| But that's only a few hours a day during the summer. Most
| of the time I'm indoors with the lights low and my themes
| dark.
| nullsense wrote:
| I mostly see people at work using dark mode during the
| day time and cheering anytime anything gets dark mode.
|
| I get it in dark rooms, but I get the sense there is this
| trend where people like dark mode because they like dark
| mode and they don't care what time of day it is. Seems
| more like fashion than anything practical, though I can
| certainly understand there is a practical application to
| it, and giving users control of it is good.
| bigbubba wrote:
| Indoors 'during the daytime' is still pretty dark in a
| great many rooms, often due to the preference of the
| rooms occupants. So it really has little to do with the
| time of day. Right now it's early in the afternoon for
| me; the sun is still up but it's overcast, my window
| blinds closed, and my lights aren't turned on because
| there is no reason for them to be on. Dark mode works
| great in these sort of dim conditions. It's really a
| matter of comfort, not fashion.
|
| As for 'at work', it's been my experience that offices
| _generally_ aren 't very bright. Not even remotely as
| bright as daylight, nor even as bright as electric
| lighting _could_ be. Those overhead florescent bulbs
| produce a harsh shade of light.. but not all that much of
| it. That 's why people squint or put on sunglasses when
| they walk out of office buildings during the day.
| 1996 wrote:
| My terminal is solarized light, and I had to battle with
| Windows to let me use a very light-grey as an accent
| color (not the off-white I wanted, but good enough)
|
| Everything matches, even notepad.
|
| At night, if I find the glaring brightness hurts my eyes
| even at the minimum level my LCD will allow, I just
| invert the screen colors - and everything still matches!
| robertfw wrote:
| I use flux on my windows box to tone down the colour
| temperature at night, and it's a real eye saver.
| bigbubba wrote:
| > _Paper is black on white for a reason_
|
| That's a bullshit argument when you're talking about
| technology thousands of years old made with material
| constraints. How would parchment be rendered black, smear
| it with soot, which would then rub off on everything it
| touched? Would you instead ink the entire page? Would
| something other than parchment be used, and if so what?
| And what white pigments would have lent themselves to
| writing? With dark ink you have numerous options, some of
| them cheaper than dirt. For white pigments you're looking
| at chalk or lead oxides, neither of which is nearly as
| available as a little charcoal.
|
| I'm not disputing that for _non-emissive_ text, dark on
| light is better. But our culture adopting this scheme had
| a lot more to do with materials that were available in
| the past than anything else. The alternative wasn 't
| evaluated because it was simply less practical to
| implement.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| It's definitely a personal thing--some people love dark mode
| (myself included) but some people either don't prefer it or
| can't stand it.
|
| As long as designers understand and support both light and
| dark, it's good to have the option.
|
| For me, any time I pop open HN or Google Drive, my eyes have to
| take a second to adjust to the glaring brightness compared to
| everything else on the screen.
| sake wrote:
| It's kind of interesting that we started computing with dark
| mode and when we jumped to windowing systems, for some reason
| that coincided with move to white on black. Maybe it was more
| familiar for office workers used to paper.
|
| There's no absolute reason why the evolution happened that
| way that I can say. It was all more or less arbitrary design
| decisions.
| guptarohit wrote:
| Finally! nice.
| st1x7 wrote:
| Good dark themes are generally softer than this. This is way too
| dark. Also, the identicons (default avatars) look out of place in
| dark mode.
| lukaszkups wrote:
| Whoa, this is really dark - even waay too dark for my taste.
| zteppenwolf wrote:
| Omg it was about time!
| gavinray wrote:
| Github and Hackernews are two of the only light-themed websites
| I've left that way.
|
| I got too used to them, and have tried putting dark themes on
| them but it just looks "wrong" now.
|
| Humans are weird.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| i use light theme on everything. its easier on the eyes
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| Just recently, I have been ditching all of my dark-theme apps
| on my desktop. For one, switching back and forth between the
| light colored windows (most websites, word processor, all my
| scientific PDFs) and the dark ones (previously, terminal,
| some websites, etc) is so bothersome. But lately I've been
| finding dark theme too hard on my eyes as well, just in
| general.
|
| So now pretty much everything is light theme, and it's like
| I'm living in 2004 again.
|
| Just gotta keep the lights on in the room when working, which
| is what I should have always done anyway.
|
| I still love the dark themes on my phone and tablet. I use
| those more often in poorly-lit areas, so that makes more
| sense, I guess.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| If you use the computer in a well lit area, then yes. Dark
| themes work well for dim lighting. That said, IME a light
| theme in a well lit area is _much_ easier on the eyes,
| especially over the course of a work day.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| I've read that, while the science/usability research is
| largely non-committal about which is better, it seems that
| black on white or similar makes your pupils dilate much
| less and therefore is easier for working for longer periods
| (less eyestrain). Though, as you say, I think you also
| really do need a well lit area to take advantage; super
| bright in a dark room isn't very good.
| tclancy wrote:
| Then there's a pair of us -- don't tell! They'd banish us, you
| know.
| jassany wrote:
| Make that a trio.
| groundCode wrote:
| How dreary to be somebody! How public like a frog...
| Raidion wrote:
| I think the only thing that remains blindingly white is now JIRA.
| Slack, github, and code editors support dark themes. Anyone know
| of a good mySQL editor that supports dark themes?
| llimos wrote:
| For Windows, HeidiSQL
| aembleton wrote:
| DBeaver - https://dbeaver.io/
| sandis wrote:
| TablePlus - https://tableplus.com/
| cyral wrote:
| Datagrip is paid, but it's an amazing editor and supports dark
| mode.
| theorangejuica wrote:
| I use a mix of the below:
|
| - IntelliJ (similar notebook style setup as Datagrip for SQL
| queries)
|
| - Sequel Ace - a fork of Sequel Pro
|
| https://github.com/Sequel-Ace/Sequel-Ace
| 1996 wrote:
| Sticking to light mode in everything is more optimal:
|
| - light mode is often the default, so you don't have to work
| around it
|
| - more readable: in the daytime, in text editors, for people with
| astigmatism
|
| - using screen inverters like
| https://github.com/mlaily/NegativeScreen/ switches your whole
| screen to "night mode" - including the pesky details like
| taskbars, menu, etc, and offering you more fine control (ex: only
| keep the red channel)
|
| Yes, even my terminal is in light mode (Solarized light) - at
| night, I just press on a key which immediately invert my screen
| colors and only preserve the red channels. No tweaking with a
| zillion apps to get them "dark".
|
| In the day time, I press on the key again and keep going with all
| the applications now "light".
| paulie_a wrote:
| I wish they would undo the new ui entirely
| woofwoofwoof wrote:
| Hope HN will release it soon.
| oltdaniel wrote:
| Finally. Really happy with it, except that the explorer/trending
| and trending page hasn't been updated yet. I hope that will
| follow to protect my eyes from that brightness contrast at night
| and in the morning.
| Raed667 wrote:
| Could it be that you're using Refined Github? Try disabling it.
| Seirdy wrote:
| A quick 'n dirty userstyle for Refined GH users:
|
| @-moz-document domain("github.com") { .dashboard .js-all-
| activity-header + div { background-color: inherit !important;
| border: 1px solid var(--color-border-secondary) !important; }
| .dashboard-rollup-items .body { border-top: 1px solid
| var(--color-border-secondary) !important; } }
| radicalriddler wrote:
| Doesn't seem to work on the /trending page :(
| enriquto wrote:
| Why do sites need to "release" dark mode? Everybody can change
| their user css easily, and put whatever text/background colors
| they want. The problem is that the css of most sites is an
| humongous monstrosity and does not cope well with a couple of
| simple changes (which was precisely the purpose behind the design
| of CSS!)
| Sodman wrote:
| Why do sites need to "release" front-ends? Everybody can write
| javascript clients to send GETs and POSTs to any company's
| back-end server!
|
| Making it a single button that enables a different theme that a
| professional designer somewhere has signed off on is a much
| better user experience for almost everybody when compared to
| the "write your own CSS" option. Even if you automate it with a
| browser extension, you're still giving that extension
| read+write access to the site, hopefully it's trustworthy!
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I love using dark themes, however all of the ones I found
| online have their own deficits and broke whenever GitHub pushed
| an update.
|
| I have no interest in designing my own as I have a terrible eye
| for design and am equally terrible at visualizing changes,
| making the process take forever. If I can click a button and
| make dark theme work, that's fantastic.
| flixic wrote:
| Owners of repositories that "assumed white background" (for
| example, https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins), consider updating
| your graphics to something that is readable in both styles.
| aendruk wrote:
| Here's where SVG with prefers-color-scheme would be useful.
| getpolarized wrote:
| About a year ago I was trying to figure out how important dark
| mode was for our app so I created a poll on Twitter and linked to
| it here on HN.
|
| https://getpolarized.io/2019/11/19/Dark-Mode-Should-Be-The-D...
|
| The idea being, if you were FORCED to pick one, would you rather
| have light or dark mode.
|
| 90% preferred dark mode with nearly 1000 votes.
|
| That blew me away honestly.
|
| Before that I thought that dark mode was a 'nice to have' but
| clearly I was wrong.
|
| The other issue isn't just dark mode but 'true black' mode for
| mobile devices and OLED. True black just looks better on mobile
| devices.
|
| Most dark mode skins can usually be converted to true black but
| you have to make sure the fonts don't become too strong.
| raunakdag wrote:
| I mean, is HN really an unbiased sample source? Ask my mom or
| grandma if she prefers dark mode over light mode and she'll say
| whatever she has right now on her phone.
| bigbubba wrote:
| Is that because your grandmother doesn't understand the
| question/choice, or did she evaluate the two options and
| decide which she prefers? I think if I asked _my_ grandmother
| a question like that she 'd probably get concerned that I was
| about to change something she was already accustomed to,
| without necessarily understanding what change was being
| proposed, and would default to invoking the _' don't fix it
| if it ain't broke'_ principle.
|
| My mother on the other hand is younger and still has an
| adventurous willingness to try new things, and last I saw was
| using the dark mode in Windows 10.
| DenisM wrote:
| If you tested "option to have a dark mode" vs "that other
| feature which was already requested 150 times", you might have
| come to an entirely different conclusion.
| Razengan wrote:
| Now if only HackerNews would relent in its zealous vendetta
| against eyes.
|
| It's appalling how such major apps and websites literally took
| YEARS to implement Dark Mode after OSes added support for it,
| while plenty of minor devs had their shit ready to ship during
| the betas of iOS and macOS.
|
| If their elite teams can't manage something as simple as an
| additional color theme, what confidence do they hope to inspire
| in their product? (then again most popular apps are actually
| crappy in other areas too; WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat etc.)
| zetabyte wrote:
| I have mild afterimage illusion when viewing text or high
| contrast images. Interestingly, the symptom is worse when
| background is dark than the other way around. So dark mode themes
| are mostly no go for me mostly unless some transparency is
| enabled. Of course, I can not use this github dark mode sadly at
| this state.
| tgvaughan wrote:
| Whenever I see something like this I always wonder how we came to
| allow website authors to dictate how their content is displayed
| on other people's computers. I know I can use greasemonkey or
| whatever to hack something together (or stick to lynx), but why
| don't websites generally just deliver text and leave the decision
| of how to render it up to me?
| gkoberger wrote:
| This is the weirdest take I've ever seen. You want to be
| writing the CSS (and JS?) for every site on the internet that
| you access?
| ryandrake wrote:
| I came here to post the same observation as OP. Used to be,
| you'd set default colors in your browser, and those would be
| used to render all web sites. No need to use a plug-in,
| override CSS per-site. If you wanted to, you could have the
| web site render into your own "brick wall" background.
|
| Over time, browsers have ceded more and more control over
| layout and colors to web developers, and got busy
| burying/deprecating the browser-side defaults... to the point
| where user preference is an afterthought now, and almost
| universally ignored by sites. Now you have to use big hammers
| like disabling CSS and JavaScript in order to have any say as
| a user. Nobody likes when your native desktop application's
| UI ignores your system default colors and forces their own
| color scheme, yet this is acceptable on the web.
| kps wrote:
| > You want to be writing the CSS ... for every site on the
| internet that you access?
|
| Yes, I want to set a style, _once_ , and have it used by
| every site on the internet that I access.
| tgvaughan wrote:
| Basically, yes. Not unique css mind you, but a single nicely
| readable (for me) set of styles for everything. This stoves a
| bunch of accessibility problems too. Why is this weird?
| adobo_sosa wrote:
| You must have a lot of free time on your hands.
| defanor wrote:
| Not sure if the questions are rhetorical, but in case if not,
| the history of allowing that is reflected in www-talk archives
| [0], and in articles such as [1]. Basically (and AIUI), some
| publishers wanted that, users didn't object too much, and it
| happened -- same as with a bunch of related technologies.
|
| [0] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/
|
| [1] https://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/book4/ch02.html
| userbinator wrote:
| All browsers used to have the concept of a user stylesheet.
| That was before corporate greed and control took over.
|
| The "modern web" and associated software is designed to take
| control away from users, so that authors can slowly give back
| an illusion of it.
|
| I've always been writing my own CSS for sites whose style but
| not content irritated me. Mostly when they change to some
| idiotic fad, so I can put it back.
| fr2null wrote:
| Multiple reasons:
|
| 1. Most people just want a website to work. (I know I do) 2.
| Because how are you gonna do support on a website when the
| website looks different for everyone involved? Are you only
| going to offer support for the basic text version? In that
| case, aren't you still kind off deciding how it looks, only now
| it looks ugly? 3. Branding. You want people to instantly
| recognize your product/brand. 4. To push features you want to
| be used, for better (handy new ones) or worse (advertising,
| generating bullshit metrics).
|
| Probably a lot more than, but these just popped in my mind.
| ramenmeal wrote:
| Completely irrelevant and more of an "off my chest". I got lasik
| earlier this year from one of the most accomplished surgeons
| using the latest lasers. Anyway, I have a bit of "haloing" which
| is more apparent on black screens w/ white text, so now I barely
| use dark mode. I guess you never know the side affects you'll get
| with elective stuff.
| edmundo wrote:
| I had LASIK done 2 months ago or so, and I was seeing the same
| halo effect at first, but it got better eventually and now I'm
| back using dark mode.
| hpfr wrote:
| It appears the default is light mode, rather than system
| preference. For those of us who use websites logged out most of
| the time, this is a bit annoying. Hopefully the default is
| changed to system preference in future.
| jarpineh wrote:
| Yes, this is very unfortunate decision. Same that Stackoverflow
| chose to do. I am liable to call this dark pattern... There's
| no technical reason for this that I can think of. Guess our
| usage data locked in is that much more profitable.
| dmitshur wrote:
| Maybe it's because the dark mode is new and in beta, waiting
| for more user feedback before they feel comfortable making it
| default in more situations.
| javitury wrote:
| It's interesting to see how they did it and pros/cons of their
| approach. In general the page look like it's built server-side.
| Some parts use lit-html but they are just a few and I believe
| they are not using webcomponents or shadowRoot.
|
| Custom css properties are used to personalize colors, which would
| also work with shadowDom.
|
| background-color: var(--color-menu-bg-active);
|
| These custom properties are declared in light.scss and applied to
| the body, using the selector [data-color-mode="light"].
|
| This method is fairly standard and widely used in modern
| websites. The only downside is that IE11 doesn't support custom
| properties and, in my expierience, there is no polyfill or
| postcss plugin that is 100% reliable.
| davidcsally wrote:
| Does GitHub support IE11? Would be interesting to see their
| browser demographics.
| rohanjon wrote:
| https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-
| team@latest/github/getti... No
| onceonce wrote:
| https://github.community/c/github-help/dark-mode-beta/65
| momothereal wrote:
| Hopefully support in RefinedGithub ships soon:
| https://github.com/sindresorhus/refined-github/issues/3798
| boogies wrote:
| Finally. There have been Stylus user styles forever, if GitHub
| was open source (like Gitea, which has dark mode enabled by
| default on some instances) they could have been merged in years
| ago.
| srik wrote:
| The emoji skin tone customization preference is a small thing but
| as a POC I really appreciate it. Never knew they had it.
| CivBase wrote:
| I also really appreciate the skin tone being a setting rather
| than having to pick the skin tone every time I select an emoji.
| This seems like an obvious thing, but some popular apps (
| _cough_ hangouts _cough_ ) still haven't figured it out.
| racl101 wrote:
| As a POC I only care about the act of having to pick one. It's
| a chore. I really don't care if the default is the Simpson-y
| yellow color. Honestly, this kind of thing is such a non issue.
|
| On the other hand, the dark theme could be kinda cool.
| sali0 wrote:
| I feel exactly the same. Major bike shedding in my opinion. I
| prefer the yellow anyway. In a way, It allows others to focus
| on who I am, not what I am.
| fotta wrote:
| This is one of those things where you can't make everyone
| happy. Similar to "disabled person" vs. "person with
| disability"
|
| As a disabled POC, I personally don't mind in either case,
| but also if at least one person feels more welcomed because
| of the change then it's worth it in my book.
| voxl wrote:
| Nothing quite like having options being viewed negatively.
|
| How do you give other people options!
| djstein wrote:
| next up hacker news?
| m4r35n357 wrote:
| Yep, just came back here after GitHub . . . aaargh!
| katsura wrote:
| I wish: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23197966
| gnabgib wrote:
| Wouldn't [the blog post)[0] be a better link then the settings
| panel?
|
| [0]: https://github.blog/2020-12-08-new-from-
| universe-2020-dark-m...
| llimos wrote:
| I _love_ how it goes to the settings panel. Kudos m1.
|
| Two clicks from the HN homepage and it's done. Informed and
| improved in one go!
| framecowbird wrote:
| Only if you have a GitHub account though! The link just took
| me to a login page...
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| I think the settings link is useful too; it allowed me to click
| on it and immediately flip the setting in question, which was
| exactly what I wanted. The blog post doesn't really contain
| anything more than, "We have dark mode now," anyway.
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| I disagree but I am up voting so other people can see your
| link.
| m4r35n357 wrote:
| Irony? The blog you linked to is in light mode, unlike the HN
| link.
| monkin wrote:
| Now I'm waiting for tomorrow's news "Hacker News Releases Dark
| Mode"! :)
| kbd wrote:
| Excellent! That's one more site I can disable in Dark Reader.
|
| Edit: spoke too soon. It's not available in their enterprise
| edition yet. _Re enables Dark Reader for corporate url._
| Sreyanth wrote:
| If only they can read my dotfiles and create the theme just for
| me! ;)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-08 23:01 UTC)