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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#26593

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:07:21 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> In the RGB triplet, blue is the darkest color and green the lightest.

Note that this is not something inherent in the physics of light itself, 
it is simply the biological fact that the human eye’s colour perception is 
most sensitive to green/yellow, and least sensitive to blue. This is 
because we have more of the colour receptors sensitive to the former than 
the latter.

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

#26602

Richmond:

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

I wonder what causes the effect.  I think it is not so much
the absolute amount of blue light, as the relative: bluish
light is associated with morning or mid-day, whereas yellow-
red light with sunset, fire, and evening.

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

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

#26624

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:

> 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?

Yes.  For example, redshift in the UNIX world and ``night light'' on
Windows systems.

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

#26566

Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

> I don't know why everybody is embracing "Dark Mode"
> display settings these days

/embrace/ is a terrible manipulative term here, straight
form the ugly corporate slang.

> The "easier on the eyes" excuse is nonsense.

It is not an excuse, but a genuine reason (at least with
me).  You accuse of lying all the many peole using dark mode
to relief eye strain simply because you cannot sympathise
with them.  You should not mind-read, or make claims about
the opponent's reasons without good evidence.

> I say this as someone whose computing career began with
> CRT terminals that displayed light text (or, if you were
> lucky, graphics) against a dark background.  As soon as
> the display technology allowed for dark text on a light
> background, a lot of us made the switch,

I should not expect Unicode punctuation on Usenet from
someone with your backgroind.  As far as I remember, those
old terminals had ugly, eye-burning colors that kill one's
eyes.

> for the same reason that printed paper usually has dark
> text on a light background, and not the other way round:
> because it's easier on the eyes.

The primary reason with paper is the economy of ink.

> Because, you see, to make light text on a dark background
> easier to read, people tend to turn up the brightness.

I have no such experience, either first- or second-hand,
Instead, I choose a dark scheme with a moderate contrast,
that is a soft dark background (not stark black) and a
somewhat subdued foreground (not stark white).

> And this greater brightness tends to tire out the eyes
> sooner. With a large, light background, things remain
> comfortably readable at lower display intensities.

You overlook the key difference between paper and display.
Whereas the former is not a light source itself, but
reflects external illumination in a pleasant, diffuse manner
consistent with the illimunation of the environment, the
latter is emits harsh, unwholesome light with a high blue
component direct into one's eye.  This is why monitors are
much more contrasty than paper with print.

The human eye is designed (or has evolved, if you will) to
perceive diffuse and relatively low-contrast light, with no
harsh blue component, so it is only natural that dark mode,
when done right, is more comfortable and wholesom, for it
drastically decreases the amount of light emitted by the
display, while keeping the necessary contrast.

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

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

#26592

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:35:04 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> You accuse of lying ...

No, you are the one who used that word, I did not.

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

#26599

Lawrence D'Oliveiro to Anton Shepelev:

> > You accuse of lying ...
>
> No, you are the one who used that word, I did not.

Yes, I am -- in clear terms to describe your statetement.
When you ask of a person the reason they do something, and
then call their answer an excuse, it is as good as saying
they lied, for an excuse is nothing but a false, ostensible,
reason, given to veil the true one.

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

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

#26612

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:44:36 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro to Anton Shepelev:
> 
>>> You accuse of lying ...
>>
>> No, you are the one who used that word, I did not.
> 
> Yes, I am -- in clear terms to describe your statetement.

You are ascribing malicious motives to people who are simply deluded.

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

#26671

Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro to Anton Shepelev:
> >
> >>> You accuse of lying ...
> >>
> >> No, you are the one who used that word, I did not.
> >
> > Yes, I am -- in clear terms to describe your statetement.
>
> You are ascribing malicious motives to people who are
> simply deluded.

By repeatedly snipping my argumentation you show that you
are not interested in a meaningful conversation.

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

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

#26677

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
> 
>> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro to Anton Shepelev:
>> >
>> >>> You accuse of lying ...
>> >>
>> >> No, you are the one who used that word, I did not.
>> >
>> > Yes, I am -- in clear terms to describe your statetement.
>>
>> You are ascribing malicious motives to people who are
>> simply deluded.
> 
> By repeatedly snipping my argumentation you show that you
> are not interested in a meaningful conversation.

More often than not Lawrence is simply trolling, best to just killfile 
him and not have to see his whinings.

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

#26687

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:11:10 +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
> 
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro to Anton Shepelev:
>>>
>>>>> You accuse of lying ...
>>>>
>>>> No, you are the one who used that word, I did not.
>>>
>>> Yes, I am -- in clear terms to describe your statetement.
>>
>> You are ascribing malicious motives to people who are simply deluded.

If you can’t tell the difference between people who are repeating false 
statements that they might believe (or have been led to believe) are true, 
and those who are deliberately repeating statements that they know to be 
falsehoods ... what does that say about you?

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

#26803

>>>>> On 2025-02-20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

 > 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.

	And it's very well possible that it works one way for some, and
	the other for others.

	For instance, the Ars Technica post you've referenced explicitly
	mentions that "dark mode" results in lower power consumption (even
	if slightly) for OLED displays, not (currently more common) LCDs.

	My understanding is that electrons hitting phosphor produce
	(waste) heat, too, and even more so for those electrons that
	hit the /mask/ rather than the phosphor; hence I'd venture to
	guess power savings are to be expected for CRT displays as well.

	For "backlit" LCDs (i. e., computers, not digital multimeters),
	power consumption is largely that of their backlight source, which
	indeed directly depends on the brightness setting; and on the
	"mode" only as much as user's brightness preference depends on it.

 > 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.

	Fad or not, it's worked for me so far.  I've had "setterm
	-foreground white -background blue -bold off -store" in my
	~/.bash_profile since 2004-10-07 at the latest, CRT and LCD
	alike.  (I don't recall ever using an OLED display yet.)  E. g.:

http://users.am-1.org/~ivan/misc-2022/sfn.oIXvO0FgwKI2peJnKbe__sn-K4uXM97sK2lAyDNgcMs.png

	In the 1990s, I've used "DOS" software, which didn't exactly
	offer an easy way to change system-wide color scheme.  (Not that
	X is /that/ much better in this respect, all things considered.)
	Though I still remember using a light-on-dark preset for
	DOS Navigator.

	I mostly stick to fbcon these days (and just direct images
	straight to /dev/fb0 whenever I need to view any), but when
	I need X, I actually use a reverse color scheme, e. g.:

http://users.am-1.org/~ivan/misc-2022/sfn.KHoLfg7SXl33RP3NDuSt-RkvFiORw9AEtzhSj3tOK5A.png

	I've had "XTerm*background: gray" and "XTerm*foreground:
	navyblue" in my ~/.Xresources since 2013-12-25 at the latest.
	(I've used "Wheat" on "DarkSlateGray" before.)

	Can't say I've noticed all that much difference in eye strain
	between these two settings.  So far as I can tell, for me, eye
	strain depends more on information density than on specific
	colors (provided there's adequate contrast, of course.)  Say,
	I can read 80 characters long lines, and I'd rather not read
	160.  I can comfortably use a horizontal toolbar with 15 buttons
	across the entire width of the screen (or a vertical one with 12,
	similarly), and much less so that with 50.  And so on.

 > The "easier on the eyes" excuse is nonsense.

	... Lastly, ambient lightning indeed /does/ matter: using
	"light" mode in a dark room is ought to result in the strain
	to the intrinsic eye muscles, as the moving eye will have to
	adapt to the difference in brightness between the screen and
	the environment.

	Though perhaps too dark ambient lightning should be avoided in
	the first place, as dilated pupil will result in blurred image
	on the retina.  (As perhaps any photographer would know.)

 > I say this as someone whose computing career began with CRT terminals
 > that displayed light text (or, if you were lucky, graphics) against
 > a dark background.  As soon as the display technology allowed for
 > dark text on a light background, a lot of us made the switch,

	As has already been pointed in this thread, CRT flicker is more
	noticeable on light backgrounds, so that might've been a factor
	for dark background popularity (such as it was) back when CRTs
	were common.

 > for the same reason that printed paper usually has dark text on a
 > light background, and not the other way round: because it's easier
 > on the eyes.

	I'm inclined to agree with Computer Nerd Kev here in that we
	have dark ink on light paper largely because that's the way
	technology's been evolving so far.  At this point, dark-on-
	light is simply way cheaper than the other way around.

	(If anything, I don't recall ever seeing white toner on offer
	for my HP LJ 1020.)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web