wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Going Dark?
Caroling Geary 2007-Mar-19 13:08:00
Markus, I appreciate the hours and energy you have put into the
proposed color scheme. A lot of thought went into the different color
values of type and content blocks. I think it works and is
attractive. Therefore I'm sorry to say that I side with the view that
a neutral background benefits the image but black text on a white
background is easiest to read.
On Mar 18, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Landis wrote:
> You can see this new scheme by looking at the Best of 2006 at:
> http://128.32.102.88:8090/gen/live_preview/wwp1206/index.html
On Mar 18, 2007, at 2:06 AM, Jakob Norstedt-Moberg wrote:
> Mac allowed a white, paperlike
> background. When Windows came, the PC:s also switched to a white
> background. The opinion was that it was much more user friendly and
> easy to read. Was that opinion wrong?
>
No, the opinion of white being easier to read is not wrong. Look at
Google.com. Look at apple.com. Look at your email program. Mine is
black type on white ground. msn.com has blue and gray text and it is
definitely harder to read on Cinema HD display.
On Mar 18, 2007, at 6:36 AM, yuval levy wrote:
> Mixed with the above transitions it should
> make it possible to have the best of both world: black
> background for the image and white background for the
> text.
Yes, I agree.
On Mar 18, 2007, at 6:53 AM, Richard Crowest wrote:
> I agree that the panoramas look better on the dark background, but
> the text is definitely more difficult to read. Accessibility
> guidelines for text in exhibitions, etc, generally advise against
> white text on a dark background.
Yes, I agree.
Also with Keith Martin's statements. And many others that followed.
Caroling Geary, www.wholeo.net