Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #26526 > unrolled thread

What Is The Point Of Dark Mode?

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 20:57 +0000
    Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-21 08:40 +1000
      Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 00:16 +0000
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:29 +1000
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:24 +0000
            Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-22 08:57 +1000
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 23:38 +0000
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-22 16:07 +0000
                Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-02-22 17:04 +0042
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? SH <i.love@spam.com> - 2025-02-21 10:36 +0000
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:20 +0000
      Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> - 2025-02-21 00:41 +0000
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 12:41 +0300
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-21 14:49 +0000
            Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 18:28 +0300
            Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 18:36 +0300
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-22 17:19 +0300
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-22 19:10 +0000
            Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-22 21:26 +0000
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-23 02:10 +0000
                Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-23 09:42 +0000
    Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-21 00:38 +0000
      Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 01:25 +0000
    Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:28 -0300
      Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-21 12:23 +0000
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 18:07 +0300
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 18:13 +0300
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-21 15:35 +0000
            Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 18:41 +0300
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-21 15:48 +0000
                Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-22 17:10 +0300
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-02-21 15:58 +0000
                Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 19:04 +0300
            Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-22 05:19 -0400
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-02-22 11:00 +0000
                Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-22 17:03 +0300
                  Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-02-22 15:55 +0000
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-22 21:27 +0000
                Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-23 03:08 -0400
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2025-02-21 17:21 +0000
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 23:42 +0000
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-22 17:15 +0300
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:32 -0300
    Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-21 12:35 +0300
      Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 23:40 +0000
        Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-22 16:44 +0300
          Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-22 22:05 +0000
            Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-25 14:11 +0300
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-25 16:15 +0000
              Re: What Is The Point Of Dark Mode? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-25 20:34 +0000
    Re: what is the point of dark mode? Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-02 15:30 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#26616

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> writes:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 21:26 this Saturday (GMT):
>> On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:10:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Electron does suck, yeah, but it does technically make more programs
>>> compatible with Linux.
>>
>> It was Microsoft’s choice of framework for building Visual Studio Code. 
>> Wonder why?
>
> Wait, VSC is a website?

No and yes.  It’s a standalone application written in JavaScript and
using Electron (analogous to how you might use C and GTK+, etc).

However, there’s an in-browser version too. That came later.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26548

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> I don’t know why everybody is embracing “Dark Mode” display settings
> these days. Some say it’s for power saving, others say it’s easier on
> the eyes. The only reason I’ve heard that makes sense is graphic
> artists doing colour work use it (together with appropriately set-up
> ambient lighting--important!) to get a more consistent viewing
> environment, crucial for ensuring those colours come out correct. As
> far as I’m concerned, everybody else is following a fad.
>

I was reading your text in green on black until on a whim I changed the
green to blue. Anyway, I always hated the white backround. It was forced
on me by Windows as I could never find a satisfactory way around it. But
the 'paper' colour was dazzling, and in the early days VDUs were at
50-60hz and I could see the flashing.

Maybe it depends on eye colour.

Blue is easier to see with reading glasses which are less strong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26552

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:38:49 +0000, Richmond wrote:

> But the 'paper' colour was dazzling, and in the early days VDUs were at
> 50-60hz and I could see the flashing.

There could have been a point about refresh rates. I used the original 
small-screen Macintosh a lot in the mid-1980s, which as you know used a 
light background when everybody else was still dark, and that had a 60Hz 
(actually 60.15Hz) refresh. It was fine when I looked at it directly, but 
I could see the flicker in my peripheral vision.

Then I went to a Macintosh II, with a bigger screen (13” or 14”, depending 
on how you measured it), with a 67Hz refresh. That higher rate worked well 
at that larger size.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26560

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> The “easier on the eyes” excuse is nonsense.

I never bought that either.  

By the way, I use dark text on light background, but that's because I
use blue light filters pretty all day long, making it stronger at night;
only a light background works well that way.  Anyway, what's very
noticeably easier on my eyes is the blue light filter.  I run redshift.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26574

Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> writes:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> The “easier on the eyes” excuse is nonsense.
>
> I never bought that either.  
>
> By the way, I use dark text on light background, but that's because I
> use blue light filters pretty all day long, making it stronger at night;
> only a light background works well that way.  Anyway, what's very
> noticeably easier on my eyes is the blue light filter.  I run redshift.

By blue light filter you mean a filter that removes blue light? like the
night viewing mode?

I think there might be a case for white background in a well lit sunny
room. But on cloudy days or at night a black background is better. And
blue text is easier to see for me. But this web page presents a
different view.

https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/cfaqPart6.html

In the examples of the word "hello" blue on black looks quite clear to
me, but then so does black on white. But blue on red and red on blue are
disasters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26576

Richmond:

> But this web page presents a different view.
>
>   https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/cfaqPart6.html
>
> In the examples of the word "hello" blue on black looks
> quite clear to me, but then so does black on white. But
> blue on red and red on blue are disasters.

While working on a NetPBM tool for the adjustment of
saturation[1], I learned a bit about colors, partly from
direct experience.  In the RGB triplet, blue is the darkest
color and green the lightest.  Perceived saturation is an
inverse[2] relation to perceived brightness.  The six main
colors in the order of increasing brightness and (generally)
decreasing saturation are: BRMGCY, with blue the darkest and
yellow the lightest color.

Blue on black is bad because of poor contrast, as well as
pure red on pure blue, and yellow on white.  Also see how
ugly green on white on that page is -- the exact combination
in the default colorscheme of Microsoft SQL Management
Studio!

Attempting to increase the brightness of blue by adding red
and green quickly "dillutes" its saturation.  For this
reason, good dark schemes tend to use bluish colors for the
background or comments (for there may be more than one), and
green-yellow collors for the foreground.  Converselty, white
schemes have to use dark colors for the foreground, which
significantly decreases the variety of hues, and that is a
serious disadvatage.
____________________

1. Example:
   <https://freeshell.de/antonius/img_host/pamaltsat-ex01-v.png>

2. The indefinite article is intentional, because it is a
   general tendency rather than an exact analytical
   relation.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26577

I wrote:

> For this reason, good dark schemes tend to use bluish
> colors for the background or comments (for there may be
> more than one), and green-yellow collors for the
> foreground.

I meant green-red colors for the background.  And of course
the neutral color is usable for background (dark grey),
comments (grey), main text (light grey), and keywords
(white), but hardly for all the four simultaneously (unless
on a greyscale terminal) because of too high a contrast
required to keep the gradations easily distinguishable.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26579

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:

> Richmond:
>
>> But this web page presents a different view.
>>
>>   https://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/cfaqPart6.html
>>
>> In the examples of the word "hello" blue on black looks quite clear
>> to me, but then so does black on white. But blue on red and red on
>> blue are disasters.
>
> While working on a NetPBM tool for the adjustment of saturation[1], I
> learned a bit about colors, partly from direct experience.  In the RGB
> triplet, blue is the darkest color and green the lightest.  Perceived
> saturation is an inverse[2] relation to perceived brightness.  The six
> main colors in the order of increasing brightness and (generally)
> decreasing saturation are: BRMGCY, with blue the darkest and yellow
> the lightest color.
>
> Blue on black is bad because of poor contrast, as well as pure red on
> pure blue, and yellow on white.  Also see how ugly green on white on
> that page is -- the exact combination in the default colorscheme of
> Microsoft SQL Management Studio!
>
> Attempting to increase the brightness of blue by adding red and green
> quickly "dillutes" its saturation.  For this reason, good dark schemes
> tend to use bluish colors for the background or comments (for there
> may be more than one), and green-yellow collors for the foreground.
> Converselty, white schemes have to use dark colors for the foreground,
> which significantly decreases the variety of hues, and that is a
> serious disadvatage.  ____________________
>
> 1. Example:
>    <https://freeshell.de/antonius/img_host/pamaltsat-ex01-v.png>
>
> 2. The indefinite article is intentional, because it is a general
>    tendency rather than an exact analytical relation.

Another thing to consider though is that blue light refracts more than
redlight. So if eyesight is becoming poor, it may still be possible to
focus on blue writing without glasses, while red will no longer be
possible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26581

Richmond:

> Another thing to consider though is that blue light
> refracts more than redlight. So if eyesight is becoming
> poor, it may still be possible to focus on blue writing
> without glasses, while red will no longer be possible.

Hmmm, I do people ever complain of color aberrations?  Does
anybody find the natural full-spectrum daylight (3000-4000K)
less comfortable than a spectral-color lighting?  I do not
think so.

By the way, seeing pure blue and pure red close together on
the stark black background of a 16-color terminal feels
weird to me.  The red words seem to stand out of the display
plane.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26582

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> writes:

> Richmond:
>
>> Another thing to consider though is that blue light refracts more
>> than redlight. So if eyesight is becoming poor, it may still be
>> possible to focus on blue writing without glasses, while red will no
>> longer be possible.
>
> Hmmm, I do people ever complain of color aberrations?  Does anybody
> find the natural full-spectrum daylight (3000-4000K) less comfortable
> than a spectral-color lighting?  I do not think so.

OK but I am not sure what bearing that has on it.

>
> By the way, seeing pure blue and pure red close together on the stark
> black background of a 16-color terminal feels weird to me.  The red
> words seem to stand out of the display plane.

Yes because it is refracting differently. These things are noticeable
when looking at red and blue LEDs for example on gambling machines. The
blue light is clearer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26601

Richmond to Anton Shepelev:

> > Hmmm, I do people ever complain of color aberrations?
> > Does anybody find the natural full-spectrum daylight
> > (3000-4000K) less comfortable than a spectral-color
> > lighting?  I do not think so.
>
> OK but I am not sure what bearing that has on it.

Since natural daylight has the full spectrum, different
refraction of red and blue would cause noticeable color
oberrations in the vision, Not only does not daylight cause
them, but it is also the most comfortable source of
illumincation.

> > By the way, seeing pure blue and pure red close together
> > on the stark black background of a 16-color terminal
> > feels weird to me.  The red words seem to stand out of
> > the display plane.
>
> Yes because it is refracting differently. These things are
> noticeable when looking at red and blue LEDs for example
> on gambling machines. The blue light is clearer.

Can it rather to do a difference /dissipation/?

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26583

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> do people ever complain of color aberrations?

As a glasses wearer, when driving and looking in side mirrors, most cars 
have small daylight running lights, which show as a bright blue point 
source separated from a smudge of green/yellow/red.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26584

Andy Burns to Anton Shepelev:

> > do people ever complain of color aberrations?
>
> As a glasses wearer, when driving and looking in side
> mirrors, most cars have small daylight running lights,
> which show as a bright blue point source separated from a
> smudge of green/yellow/red.

That effect is due to the the glasses, not to the eye.

Let me observe without any sharp criticism that the
introductory phrase above is dangling, because the subject
of the following clause is not /I/, but /cars/ .

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26595

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:

> Another thing to consider though is that blue light refracts more than
> redlight. So if eyesight is becoming poor, it may still be possible to
> focus on blue writing without glasses, while red will no longer be
> possible.

There's also the factor that continuous exposure to blue visual field
is reported to be more of a mood depressant that other colors.

Single data point:

I do most things other than web browsing in emacs:

   emacs -fn [snip] -fg rgb:f/c/c -bg rgb:5/0/1  -cr SandyBrown

which is (or looks like) white on a dark red background with an orange
cursor.  Arrived at this as most readable and least fatiguing after
experiments with numerous color combinations incl blues, greens,
orange and black background.

I use vividly different colors for xterms/emacsen that must be easily
and noticeably different to prevent bad errors, e.g. su to root or
remote logins to ther hosts.

White background is too bright, too fatiguing.  PDF manuals that force
white or bright background are really annoying.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26597

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 05:19:56 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:

> White background is too bright, too fatiguing.  PDF manuals that force
> white or bright background are really annoying.

I've set my PDF reader to use a lightish grey background.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26600

Bob Eager to Anton Shepelev:

> > White background is too bright, too fatiguing.  PDF
> > manuals that force white or bright background are really
> > annoying.
>
> I've set my PDF reader to use a lightish grey background.

That's right.  It's not the PDF manual, but the PDF reader.
I prefer to set the background in my PDF reader and my
browser to some reddish yellow resembling old paper, e.g.:
255/232/216 or even
255/227/207 .

Does anyone know how to configure a non-white background for
qpdview?

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26605

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:03:34 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Bob Eager to Anton Shepelev:
> 
>> > White background is too bright, too fatiguing.  PDF manuals that
>> > force white or bright background are really annoying.
>>
>> I've set my PDF reader to use a lightish grey background.
> 
> That's right.  It's not the PDF manual, but the PDF reader. I prefer to
> set the background in my PDF reader and my browser to some reddish
> yellow resembling old paper, e.g.: 255/232/216 or even 255/227/207 .
> 
> Does anyone know how to configure a non-white background for qpdview?

I have it installed, but mostly I use xpdf.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26611

On 22 Feb 2025 05:19:56 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:

> White background is too bright, too fatiguing.

Does your monitor not have a suitable brightness control?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26615

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On 22 Feb 2025 05:19:56 -0400, Mike Spencer wrote:
> 
>> White background is too bright, too fatiguing.
> 
> Does your monitor not have a suitable brightness control?

Oh, probably it does.  Some kind of rocker buttons and other buttons
on the back.  Not even a power button on the front.  Newish 24" LCD and
I must still have the manual somewhere but dicking around with the
buttons was too much trouble when it pretty well worked out of the
box.

If there's a software way to manage the monitor, I don't know about
it.

Yes, I do tell xpdf to use a dimgrey "papercolor". xpdf-3.04 (used
because  it can print w/lprng) complains:

Config Error: Unknown config file command 'paperColor' (/home/mds/.xpdfrc:23)

but does it anyway. xpdf version 4.03 doesn't complain.


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26586

In article <20250221180721.7e133a78cadf056ca086451c@g{oogle}mail.com>,
Anton Shepelev  <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>Blue on black is bad because of poor contrast, as well as
>pure red on pure blue, and yellow on white.  Also see how
>ugly green on white on that page is -- the exact combination
>in the default colorscheme of Microsoft SQL Management
>Studio!

SSMS has always defaulted to black-on-white in the 16+ years I've been using
it.  Looking at a random stored procedure, it looks like keywords are blue,
function names are magenta, string literals are red, and only comments are
green.

-- 
  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/         Top-posting!
 \_^_/                            >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web