[HN Gopher] GitHub Dark Mode is too Dark.
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub Dark Mode is too Dark.
Author : karenying7
Score : 276 points
Date : 2020-12-12 18:03 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.karenying.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.karenying.com)
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I really dislike the trend of pushing dark mode as a default on
| everything. There's at least some evidence that reading retention
| is higher with dark characters on a light background, and I think
| the preference for dark mode often comes from people sitting in
| badly lit environments, or having their monitor turned up to
| bright.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| There's a trend of following your device's dark/light
| preference, but I personally haven't seen many site pushing
| dark-by-default.
| blunte wrote:
| The unfortunate trend is people producing otherwise useful
| educational Youtube content (particularly developers) in dark
| mode. They surely don't realize they are losing some portion
| of their audience due to any of a few reasons (not the least
| of which is the audience who actually works outside
| sometimes!)
| DenseComet wrote:
| I've seen this more and more, but I wish sites would provide
| a way to switch themes. For example, the Ghost blog default
| theme follows your device preference, but AFAIK there's no
| way to toggle to light mode, which is quite annoying
| considering how common it is.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Yea, that's frustrating. I'm a bit surprised browsers don't
| have built in exceptions for this.
| johnghanks wrote:
| It's not the default what are you even talking about?
| dehrmann wrote:
| My theory is people use them because they look cooler.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Blasting white light into your eyes from every pixel that _isn
| 't information_ is totally backwards and stupid. Light up that
| which represents something, not the background.
|
| Can you imagine what life on Earth would be like if the cosmic
| background radiation was the brightest thing around?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| YorickPeterse wrote:
| > Can you imagine what life on Earth would be like if the
| cosmic background radiation was the brightest thing around?
|
| We'd probably be dead. This also has nothing to do with dark
| mode.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| Light isn't bad for you, which seems to be the premise of
| your argument.
| noahtallen wrote:
| Perhaps staring into a light for a long time is more
| problematic? I certainly find it more draining on my eyes
| to use light UIs for extended periods.
| snazz wrote:
| I'll guess that your screen brightness is set too high.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| Can your eyes tell any difference between diffuse and
| emitted light? If the background on your monitor is
| roughly the same brightness as the white painted wall
| behind it, what's the difference to your eyes?
| paxys wrote:
| What service is dark mode the default on?
| stared wrote:
| Discord.
| wruza wrote:
| Some ms windows docs turned dark recently, afair. Can't
| remember which, but it often turns up when troubleshooting
| their fantastically clear 8001fcd8 etc error codes.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Not a service, but VS Code.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| of the software I've just used today, VsCode, Discord,
| Spotify, Facebook since the redesign.
| paxys wrote:
| Terminals and text editors have had dark themes as default
| for decades. This isn't a new trend. Spotify also has never
| had a light theme since launch (10+ years). Facebook (and
| 99% of other software released today) goes by whatever your
| browser/OS preference is.
| jamil7 wrote:
| As far as I can remember Spotify has always had a dark
| colour scheme hasn't it?
| dehrmann wrote:
| I think one of the older iOS apps wasn't light-on-dark,
| but for a very long time, yes.
|
| https://spotify.design/article/reimagining-design-
| systems-at...
| ffpip wrote:
| Facebook and VS Code are probably using dark mode because
| you have set your system and browser theme to dark
| blunte wrote:
| VSCode dark is default. You can switch to light modes if
| you wish, but it starts out dark. At least in that app
| you have choices. Fortunately most modern editors and
| IDEs give you options.
| spidersouris wrote:
| > There's at least some evidence that reading retention is
| higher with dark characters on a light background
|
| Genuinely interested to know where you have seen this.
| blunte wrote:
| Perhaps from here or referenced here:
| https://tidbits.com/2019/05/31/the-dark-side-of-dark-mode/
| petercooper wrote:
| I'm okay with it as long as it's customizable. What I dislike
| is when apps or sites don't give you the choice.
|
| I like my operating system UI/chrome to be dark, but my
| documents (including Web pages) to be dark on white. This is
| becoming increasingly difficult to do, although you can force
| Firefox into reporting light mode to every page if you have to.
| Firehawke wrote:
| ..and conversely I hate the trend of pushing black text on a
| white background. I have severe photosensitivity, and even in a
| brightly lit room with a monitor set to 75% brightness large
| patches of white background hurt my eyes to the point of
| building a migraine.
| afterburner wrote:
| It's good for phones that have OLED/AMOLED screens, since it
| saves quite a lot of battery life. It's also good if reading in
| bed (with the lights off).
|
| On a desktop though I prefer to use blue-filters at night, and
| nothing during the day.
|
| However for those sensitive to light I assume dark mode is a
| lifesaver.
| blunte wrote:
| Here's a tip - whether in light mode or dark mode, you can
| turn your screen brightness down.
| wruza wrote:
| It depends. I'm very light sensitive and can't stop squinting
| even on cloudy day outside, but common light on dark makes my
| eyes get tired in _minutes_ on any screen quality. Light
| scheme, night mode and brightness zero+ is what I'm using in
| bed.
|
| On subj, I wish such sites to publish their colorscheme css
| that would be easy to modify and drop into stylebot (iirc
| that extension name). It's often a couple of colors and a
| background that have to be adjusted besides defaults to look
| good enough. We're all different.
| neolog wrote:
| > reading retention is higher
|
| I would be shocked if that's replicable.
| blunte wrote:
| This article makes references to that point:
| https://tidbits.com/2019/05/31/the-dark-side-of-dark-mode/
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| If only there existed some sort of collection of settings
| regarding the user's personal preferences for fonts and colors
| that could be set an an OS level and respected by all programs.
| Alas, it is impossible for computers to do this... unless you
| count the 90s, when computers did this.
| [deleted]
| jakub_g wrote:
| Comparing to Twitter and StackOverflow, I had the same initial
| raction. For now I disabled dark mode on GH, hope it evolves into
| a less dark variation.
| [deleted]
| blunte wrote:
| I predict that dark mode, like the open office, is a hyped up fad
| that will eventually be proven to be largely detrimental.
|
| Except in the cases of saving battery on OLED displays or viewing
| a screen in very low ambient light environments, dark mode is the
| wrong answer to a problem of an overbright display.
|
| If content on a screen seems too bright, the solution is the turn
| down the display brightness. This is a choice you can make as
| your circumstance dictates. Dark mode is a nice option for a few
| cases, but it should not be forced upon anyone.
|
| There are two cases where dark mode is a really bad thing:
|
| 1. You're presenting your content via a projector in a room full
| of people (and a room full of people will have some ambient
| light, because safety rules generally prohibit trapping a lot of
| people in pitch darkness). No matter how many lumens the
| projector can put out, they will not make your low contrast
| content as visible as light mode would have been. Most often, the
| ambient light of the room will completely wash out the low
| contrast projected image.
|
| 2. You're making a screen recording of your content to demo or
| educate others (Youtube, etc.). The low contrast, colorful text
| will not compress as accurately as light mode, so the resulting
| text will be blurrier than if it were in light mode. So it will
| be harder to read compared to light mode content. Plus, if your
| viewer happens to be in a bright room or outside, your content
| will be unreadable. You've just wasted your good effort by
| limiting your audience.
|
| Edited typos :(
| davesque wrote:
| Meh. I like it. Particularly when working at night. Simply
| turning down the brightness often doesn't cut it.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Yeah. The only time I really want a dark mode is if the room
| I'm in is dark.
|
| If it isn't, I usually just don't care or actually prefer
| white for some things like writing mails.
| Fellshard wrote:
| Let me switch instantly between light mode during the day, and
| dark mode at night, using one simple toggle, or following changes
| in browser settings. Then the issues with how dark or how light
| become nearly moot.
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| It does follow system settings, if you're using a browser that
| supports it. It works on Edge but not Chrome on my MacBook.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| Chrome definitely supports the relevant media query so GitHub
| must be doing something unusual for it not to work there.
| ffpip wrote:
| Hmmmmmm. Wonder why Github has bugs with the world's most
| popular browser, but doesn't have bugs with a (very
| similar) browser made by their owners ./s
|
| (It's mostly a bug, or a setting in Chrome to not ask
| websites to use dark mode.)
| tomcooks wrote:
| Maybe it's the language barrier on my side, but this sounds like
| prime n-gate material.
| francislavoie wrote:
| I still use https://github.com/StylishThemes/GitHub-Dark for now.
|
| I love that they're doing it, but yeah, the colours aren't right
| yet. There's a lot of complaints here:
| https://github.community/c/github-help/dark-mode-beta/65
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > the secondary text color fails AAA standards
|
| Minor nitpick: The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are
| precisely that - guidelines. You should follow them until you
| have a good reason not to. And contrast ratios arent everything.
|
| This article
| https://www.bounteous.com/insights/2019/03/22/orange-you-acc...
| is a good example of how the "most accessible" colour pairing, by
| the "mathematical proof", is the least accessible and preferred
| by users.
| petepete wrote:
| The cookies popup on that site is a thing of beauty.
| karenying7 wrote:
| Also great article! Got the chance to read it and I actually
| ended up linking it in my post
|
| > While contrast ratios aren't [everything](linked it here),
| they are a simple way to quantify the difference between two
| colors.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I love that article! Thanks for sharing it!
| bladegash wrote:
| Yes, WCAG are guidelines, but they are not just suggestions in
| a lot of cases.
|
| WCAG has been adopted as the standard for a variety of
| regulatory purposes. For example, with Section 508/504, the US
| Access Board requires procurements to be compliant with WCAG
| 2.0 AA. Germany's BIVT is harmonized with WCAG 2.1 AA,
| California requires state entities and procurements comply with
| WCAG 2.0 AA, etc.
|
| At least in the US, the main sphere where WCAG has not been
| specified as the regulatory standard is with Title III places
| of public accommodation.
|
| However, Federal Courts have repeatedly upheld that places of
| public accommodation must make their websites accessible, they
| just won't say how to accomplish that (nor is it their job to).
|
| In the case of GitHub, I can tell you with 100% certainty it
| has been provided to, at least, the Federal government as part
| of a procurement, is subject to Section 508 statutory
| requirements, and WCAG 2.0 AA is the required standard.
|
| This is to say, it might not be a good idea to arbitrarily
| decide that color contrast sufficiency is just a suggestion.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| You are most correct.
|
| The European Union requires its member states to comply with
| WCAG 2.1 AA on _all_ public websites. Every branch of
| government, every agency.
| karenying7 wrote:
| Yes! Definitely agree -- I just wanted an easy way to quantify
| what I was seeing and contrast ratios are simple enough to
| understand and discuss
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| I'm curious if that article takes into account color
| calibration? Also, a sample size of 20 is relatively low to
| make a conclusion.
|
| Anyways, I do think this is an important point: the math of
| contrast ratios is a model that's intended to reflect what's
| going on with people's vision; if a large-scale study of people
| indicates that the white/orange button is easier to read, the
| math is just wrong: we have to be careful not to force reality
| into our models, otherwise the modes lose their utility.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > I'm curious if that article takes into account color
| calibration?
|
| It doesn't really matter because most displays aren't color-
| calibrated.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Sorry, I'm not sure I'm using the right term: what I'm
| wondering if the math is adjusted for the color space
| correctly.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| The "math" is fine. I'm sure, while it's not perfect, it's
| suitable in most circumstances. My point remains though is
| that WCAG are _guidelines_ , not mandates.
|
| The goal always to produce software that is accessable and
| usable by _people_ , not to satisify a mathematical
| constraint. WCAG and 'constrast ratios' are a means to that
| end, but they're not the end goal itself.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| If the math produces the wrong conclusion in some cases,
| it's worth trying to figure out if the model can be
| improved.
|
| Anyways, we're not really disagreeing as far as I can tell.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| Ok but if a law says that a government agency or industry
| must follow WCAG, I guess that turns them into mandates.
| skeletonjelly wrote:
| Of course they're guidelines, I'm not sure what alternative
| there is. WCAG mandates that the browser won't render unless it
| passes?
| mpetroff wrote:
| The WCAG also define the contrast ratio in terms of sRGB, which
| is not a perceptually-uniform color space. This makes the WCAG
| contrast ratios somewhat meaningless in terms of human visual
| perception. It's accessibility by edict, not science.
|
| There's a rather lengthy discussion of this on the WCAG issue
| tracker [1].
|
| [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/695
| refulgentis wrote:
| hah, awesome, I know exactly what issue this is without
| clicking through - Myndex is wrong on this, shockingly, but
| unfortunately my lips have to be sealed, for now.
|
| Look into the correspondence between the space Myndex uses,
| the space contrast ratio is measured in, and then again at
| the W3C docs: TL;DR Myndex's approach doesn't account for
| reflectance off the screen
| nx7487 wrote:
| The issue creator also points out "It is a concern for me
| because this W3C document is considered authoritative, and
| has made its way into government regulations." Pretty
| interesting thread.
| bihla wrote:
| > GitHub, do better. Give us the dark mode experience we deserve.
|
| Does anyone else find this to be unnecessarily abrasive? It's a
| really harsh note to end the post on when describing a product
| that many people use for free. It seems to imply that Github has
| some sort of moral failing for their color choices and
| additionally that the author is entitled to command them to
| change their work.
|
| Edit: I doubt the author intended it as such. The tone is just
| unfortunate.
| Quanttek wrote:
| Maybe it's just my observation, but I find it quite interesting
| that only finds such tone-policing comments as yours when the
| author is a woman. Daily, I see much more abrasive blogs on HN:
| instead of lampooning them for asking GitHub to be better, they
| are not rarely lauded for their "brutal honesty" while often
| straight-up insulting the blog's target.
|
| This is not meant to criticize you, OP, personally. Rather, I
| just want to point out a structural double standard.
| sequoia wrote:
| -1 from me. I was put off from the beginning when she said
| the UI "sucked" or similar, didn't know the author was a
| woman at that point. Believe me or don't but that's my story
| & I'm sticking to it.
|
| +1000 to the author for raising specific accessibility
| concerns and contrasting (no pun intended) the colour palates
| with those of other sites. The old "dark gray on light gray;
| tiny text" style (see: daring fireball of days past) drives
| me nuts.
|
| I think the author makes fantastic points and it's
| unfortunate that the somewhat mean spirited language
| distracts from those points, leading to _this_ discussion
| rather than a more substantive one about accessibility. Not
| the end of the world either way.
| eyko wrote:
| I honestly didn't notice the author's gender until you
| pointed it out, which led me to check the name. I simply read
| the article and agreed with most of the points, then came
| here to see the comments. In fact, I never attach a gender
| identity to authors or commenters unless something they say
| nudges me to check their name or username, or unless it's an
| author I'm familiar with.
|
| Having said that, I think it's a safe bet to assume that one
| doesn't "only" find such tone policing comments when the
| author is a woman, because one almost always finds such tone-
| policing comments on hacker news whenever there's an
| opportunity to complain about tone.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Love it, calling out moral posturing while doing the same thing
| yourself.
|
| It's Microsoft running a for-profit project on a freemium model
| not an act of charity. Criticizing how sloppy the choice of
| color palette was and suggesting one of the most valuable
| companies in the world should be able to do better has only
| become the natural thing to do. Time and time again we've been
| shown the only way to enact the most minor and least
| controversial changes is to make a bunch of noise in blog posts
| and call out the behemoths for their shortcomings.
|
| And hell, if we extrapolate from this (shitty) line of
| thinking, maybe Microsoft was saying "Haha plebs if you want a
| dark mode that functions better you should stop being poor and
| only buy OLED monitors."
| userbinator wrote:
| No. On the other hand, why is it that some people seem to have
| become overly sensitive? I wish most people were as direct
| about their thoughts as they used to be.
|
| Yes, GH is free, but being free does not mean they are above
| criticism.
| jevgeni wrote:
| This is not about criticism. This is about some moral
| grandstanding where none is appropriate.
|
| EDIT: The contrast ratio of the author's website (background
| vs. main copy font color) is ca. 12.29, i.e. almost exactly
| that of GH dark mode (12.26) and which they claim is too low.
| So go figure.
| ziftface wrote:
| I don't know if this was the intention either, but when I see
| articles like this, I just think we as programmers are such
| divas sometimes.
| brodie wrote:
| Maybe we should celebrate being divas!
|
| Now I'm imagining Lady Gaga's "Fashion" in my head but the
| lyrics are about coding.
| redisman wrote:
| That style of writing is extremely popular online and on
| Twitter. People love snark and entitlement when they agree
| with it
| db48x wrote:
| If only we had some way for the user agent itself to apply a
| different stylesheet...
| oftenwrong wrote:
| Exactly. The idea that a web page should choose the font, font
| size, and colours is backwards. The user should be the one to
| choose these values. I want every page to use my favourite
| reading font in a size that is comfortable to me, in colours
| that I find easy to read. No web designer knows better than I
| when it comes to my own vision.
| db48x wrote:
| Thankfully Firefox has the "Allow pages to choose their own
| fonts, instead of your selections above" setting which you
| can uncheck so that Firefox always uses your preferred fonts.
| All pages can do is choose between serif, sans-serif, and
| monospace. And you can set a minimum font size, so that text
| is never too small no matter what the page does.
| oftenwrong wrote:
| Yes, I use it! I am the only person I know that does.
| PieUser wrote:
| I don't have any issues with it -\\_(tsu)_/-
| yudlejoza wrote:
| I think, from looking at the swatches, it looks like github grays
| don't have enough warmth (don't have enough red). Otherwise the
| darkness levels are fine.
| einpoklum wrote:
| So this is news again?
|
| Next week on HN: GitHub Light Mode is too Light.
|
| Remember, you read it here first!
| karenying7 wrote:
| My bad for having a potentially misleading/clickbaity title that
| was inconsistent with the post title!!! It used to be "GitHub
| Dark Mode is too Dark. Here's the mathematical proof"
| Voyajer wrote:
| This article is how I learned github had a dark mode, I like it.
| ug02fast wrote:
| everyone's making a deal about "dark mode" just use the
| darkreader chrome extension and control the brightness on any
| page.
| jmpeax wrote:
| Nah, it's fine. The standards are just arbitrary thresholds, and
| 6.15 is pretty close to the arbitrary threshold of the AAA 7.
| nitrix wrote:
| Title: "Here's the mathematical proof".
|
| Article: "While there is no mathematical proof [...]"
|
| Can we stop with the clickbait titles?
|
| You don't arrive at a mathematical proof just by saying the words
| mathematical proof.
| tome wrote:
| > Title: "Here's the mathematical proof".
|
| I don't see that. Was it edited in the last ten minutes?
|
| [EDIT: Oh, maybe you're paraphrasing. It does say "proof" but
| not "mathematical proof" near the title.]
| karenying7 wrote:
| Hi, yes I edited the title of this HN post! It used to be
| "GitHub Dark Mode is too Dark. Here's the mathematical proof"
| but I understand how that can be misleading (and is
| inconsistent with the post title). Definitely my bad
| anonu wrote:
| Very nice article. Thanks for writing it.
| jamil7 wrote:
| I think it looks great... plus its opt in.
| ckolkey wrote:
| Counterpoint: preferences are subjective. How about an article
| about how github uses the wrong colors in their syntax
| highlighting? According to color theory, a method is blue, not
| purple.
| tomcam wrote:
| I am working on dozens of website themes right now and I am
| stymied as far as dark mode colors, accessibility, etc. I hate
| dark mode myself so this is enervating. Can someone point me to a
| good article describing dark mode best practices?
| tmabraham wrote:
| "Here's the mathematical proof"
|
| _Read the blogpost_
|
| I was deceived! :P
|
| But on a serious note, it took two seconds for me to turn back on
| light mode. No thank you, GitHub.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| Personally I love the Guthub dark mode settings. I really like
| the background to be near total black, and they got a nice
| balance from my perspective of what I find really enjoyable.
|
| I say kudos to GitHub. I wonder how much they may have gleaned
| from telemetry with VSCode and user settings there. That's a
| wealth of information for this type of decision.
| noahtallen wrote:
| I completely agree, and it's one of my favorite dark modes
| ever. In my editors, I also use #000 backgrounds. I think this
| is the sort of "can't please everyone" type situation which
| warrants even more options. If there are accessibility
| concerns, they should absolutely add a more accessible option
| with better contrast (and it should probably be the default if
| so - I really do wonder if it's actually inaccessible). IIRC,
| more color options are on the roadmap? Perhaps I misremember.
| GordonS wrote:
| FWIW, I'm red-green colour blind (quite badly), and often
| prefer more contrast to see colour delineations clearly - and I
| think GitHub's new dark mode is perfect.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| I'm with you. I honestly don't understand this vehement
| opposition. I guarantee you if something like the Dark Reader
| extension applied this same exact theme nobody would think
| twice about it.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Would be nice if the article included examples of what they're
| talking about. I'm on a phone. :(
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| This analysis seems predicated on a weird idea, like contrast is
| the main factor for readability. A simple example is flipping the
| background and foreground text. You don't end up with the same
| readability.
| coolreader18 wrote:
| Yeah, IMO the new dark mode is also way too blue; even with
| Redshift on it seems weirdly blue.
| k__ wrote:
| It could be black, for all I care.
|
| But I want high contrast.
| refulgentis wrote:
| The contrast ratios used in the article are the worst case ones,
| for 20/80 vision, the average uncorrected vision of people 80+.
| They're well over 3.0/4.5, which W3C recommends as defaults, and
| is for people with uncorrected vision of 20/40 or more
| andy_ppp wrote:
| On this iPhone 12 the foreground colours on GitHub dark mode seem
| to have very high contrast. Maybe GitHub are expecting screens to
| get brighter over the next few years and are planning ahead to
| reduce glare.
| Xevi wrote:
| I love dark mode on websites and software, but after about two
| days of using it on Github I had to revert back to light mode. I
| was developing a headache trying to read their 14px gray text.
| There's also too many gray lines everywhere. It works with a
| white background with black lines, but with a dark background it
| feels really messy.
| shadykiller wrote:
| When are we getting dark mode for Hacker News ?
| ravenstine wrote:
| The Dark Reader browser extension works very well with many
| sites, including Hacker News.
| blululu wrote:
| Whenever you get around to googling and then installing the
| chrome extension to do exactly that:
|
| https://github.com/ScFix/DarkHacker
|
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dark-hacker-news/i...
| samatman wrote:
| That's a workaround.
|
| Implementing prefers-color-scheme is the correct thing to do,
| and I daresay it wouldn't damage the admirable minimalism of
| the site to do so.
| jasoneckert wrote:
| When it comes to color schemes, personal preference comes into
| play. I actually prefer the GitHub dark mode color scheme to
| other dark modes. And I've been using dark mode forever:
| http://triosdevelopers.com/jason.eckert/stuff/darkmode.jpeg
| pkilgore wrote:
| Weird. I am red-green color blind, and I can't even tell the
| difference between the red and green diff for dark mode.
| dafoex wrote:
| I agree, but from an entirely different point of view. Tell me
| I'm doing my eyes in if you will, but I find dark mode to be easy
| on the eyes, especially when - but not exclusively because - I
| can't always control how poorly lit my environment is. Dark mode,
| however, is also a curse, because when the contrast is too high I
| find that I get this "negative space effect" where in my vision
| the letters on screen go really dim and I get a series of fuzzy
| white lines appearing between the lines, making it almost
| impossible to read any text without immediately losing my place
| and skipping to the line of text above or below.
|
| The trend towards AMOLED dark mode has made life hard for me,
| especially when using websites or phones (looking at you, Android
| 10 and above) that I can't really customise the way I can the
| rest of my computer. Give me Gruvbox's #ebdbb2 on #282828 any day
| of the week, I want to get off the AMOLED #ffffff on #000000
| train.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I couldn't do dark mode. The issue/PR labels do not contrast well
| enough with the dark background and these are a huge part of our
| daily process.
|
| Everything else looked really nice though.
| city41 wrote:
| It's a shame user stylesheets never took off. It'd be nice if we
| didn't just have prefers-color-scheme but also a set of standard
| css variables for colors we could set and get a consistent
| dark/light mode on websites. I know designers would hate that,
| but from a pragmatic viewpoint I really like the idea.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Why not use an extension? I think most HTML content and well
| labelled with classes even if that is not a public information.
| satya71 wrote:
| It didn't take me long to disable GitHub dark mode. It is not
| made for quick reading. They should talk to the people who did
| dark mode for VS Code. After all it's all MS.
| saghm wrote:
| I hadn't realized that dark mode came out for Github, so I went
| and enabled it, and wow, even as a fan of "darker" dark modes
| (rather than the medium gray that so many apps and sites seem to
| prefer), I can see what OP meant! The main issue for me is that
| the text colors are all fairly dark as well; I'm sure that my
| tastes are too gaudy for most people, but I find higher contrast
| much easier to read, and on the off-chance that anyone else is
| like me and prefers much brighter text, I threw this CSS
| together:
|
| ``` .link-gray-dark, .news li blockquote, .link-gray, .text-gray,
| .text-gray-light, .UnderlineNav-item, .blob-code-inner { color:
| white !important; }
|
| /* code comments are a dark gray by default, so I made them
| something brighter */ .pl-c { color: orange !important; } ```
|
| As a bonus, if you also can't stand the sidebar on the right of
| the main page, you can hide it and reclaim the space for more
| useful content with this:
|
| ``` [aria-label="Explore"] { display: none !important; } ```
| BalinKing wrote:
| @mods: I think the current article title is "GitHub Dark Mode is
| too Dark."
| [deleted]
| antjanus wrote:
| > However, for some reason the lighter one is just easier for me
| to parse at a cursory glance
|
| I have the opposite reaction. I wonder what kind of
| computer/monitor the author is using.
|
| I found that lighter colors (whites/greys/very light pastels)
| display way better on an Apple-made monitor while darker colors
| look much better on Thinkpads/Acer/Asus/etc. monitors.
|
| I got into quite a few back-and-forths with designers that only
| design on Macs because the colors look _way_ different on other
| devices.
| pmlnr wrote:
| > GitHub, do better. Give us the dark mode experience we deserve.
|
| Or... give us the option to set our own colours.
| arvindamirtaa wrote:
| The problem with most dark-modes is too much contract between the
| background (very close to black) and the text (very close to
| white).
|
| In reality, the best dark mode is when you hit the perfect
| balance between a dark and a light shade of gray that's clearly
| and easily readable but doesn't seem like you've focus lights
| pointing at you wherever there's text on a dark page.
| onion2k wrote:
| I like dark mode on Github with the notable exception of the diff
| view, and unfortunately that's the thing I use in the web UI most
| often. In light mode additions are green and deletes are red -
| they're obviously different. In dark mode additions are dark
| greenish grey and deletes are dark reddish grey - they're really
| similar. That, for me, means I've lost a huge amount of
| information. It's bad enough to keep me in light mode.
| atian wrote:
| https://ianstormtaylor.com/design-tip-never-use-black/
| yreg wrote:
| This tip seems to be meant for people who didn't even realise
| they could use dark blues and grays instead of black.
|
| There's nothing wrong with designers who understand the concept
| still choosing to go for a 100% black.
| [deleted]
| quotemstr wrote:
| The brightness of the site should be under user-agent control
| somehow anyway.
|
| There are extensions (e.g. dark reader) that try to generically
| make websites dark using graphics filter and CSS tricks. This
| approach mostly works, but fails pretty badly in some cases. It'd
| be nice if this client side color adjustment were standardized
| and website makers testes their sites with it. This way, each
| person could make sites as dark as he wanted.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-12 23:00 UTC)