This seems highly unlikely if your brightness isn't completely off. What cd/m2 are you at? I'm on a Eizo CG277 with built-in hardware self calibration. It's set to 120 cd/m2 and I have hard time thinking it could be painful to anyone. I much prefer #000 on #fff over lower contrast alternatives.

At the same time, #000000 may not be above 2 cd/m² at the absolute most if a pure black and a pure white pixel are shown right next to each other.

[0] https://www.iso.org/standard/43234.html

My screen is fine, probably as good as or better than what most people have. We can't optimize for the almost 0% of people who have calibrated screens to the detriment of the big majority of people.

Those norms also set a limit for the maximum amount of contrast allowed at a workspace, which #000000 on #ffffff violates if it’s shown on a color-calibrated screen with standard brightness.

> We can't optimize for the almost 0% of people who have calibrated screens to the detriment of the big majority of people.

We can’t just change the meaning of what definitions and terms mean just because it’s easier than making everyone follow the standard.

Create a color profile for your monitor, so your OS can compress contrast if your monitor isn’t powerful enough to reach the SDR sRGB specs.

Still, any standard prescribing "standard brightness" for office environments is bound to be nothing but a decent average or default. Even if there was biologically optimal display luminance, it would still depend on the environment lightning (which changes during the day if there's a single window in the room), and on the state of the viewers eyes (age, any visual problems or even temporary issues like tiredness), type of display...

The purpose of a standard isn't to be most preferred by any given person or "biologically optimal", it's to be...standard. Without a standard, a designer has no ability to pick a particular color and expect anything like that color to be what the end user sees. Without a standard, there's almost no point in discussing what text colors websites are or aren't using.

The GP was talking about using whatever "DIN norms for workspaces" regarding screen brightness are, so I don't see how that relates to colour calibration.

You also sound as if any one end user really cares if they are looking at exactly the right hue of blue when looking at the "hp" logo. If anything, the company and their marketing department care (for subliminal messaging?), but users really don't. I don't think anyone could pick a McDonald's red or yellow out of a given table of similar red/yellow hues.

But even so, if we were looking at any non-light-emitting content displaying colour (eg. a printout), it will look differently to your eye whether you are looking at it in dim light or in a very light setting, so designer can't do anything about that.

Anyone who knows even the most basic stuff about colour perception understands that it can't be decoupled from your environment (enter a darkroom and every colour is suddenly... black).

Colour calibration and standards are done so that you can guarantee that some things will look identical when displayed in exactly the same environment (so your two screens sitting next to each other show the same hues) or to reproducibly transfer between different mediums (eg. screen and paper), but there is no way you can guarantee that it will look identical for another user in a different environment.

Colour calibration is of limited use in general (eg. even different types of paper [think glossy vs matte] will produce different visual results), and while there's more stability with light-emitting mediums (like LCD screens) — because you, essentially, control some of the lightning as well — that breaks down for the average user because they do need to adjust the brightness according to their environment. Those who absolutely require reproducibility, control both their environment and their equipment.

https://www.iso.org/standard/57992.html

> that will ensure effective and comfortable viewing conditions for users with normal or adjusted-to-normal eyesight

Sounds like it did not do so for you, in the case of non-compliant websites with your compliant display.

I can't be bothered for my personal blog. $158 is my hosting cost for 3 years or so.

I'm sure people with calibrated screens can find a setting where black on white is comfortable, even temporarily, while most people just can't fix contrast lowered at the source. Including not visually impaired people in not ideal environments.

But the same issues apply in reverse if you try to reduce contrast because some idiot thought a 200:1 contrast for text was healthy.

My personal solution is relatively simple: I replace every monitor that’s too shitty to do sRGB at good contrast at 400 nits. For a T470/T480 I can recommend this panel: https://www.xelent-store.de/Innolux-N140HCG-GQ2-400cd-Low-Po...

"Screen configuration" means more things. You can optimize for readability, or you can optimize for faithfulness (and more). You should switch according to use.

Just like I've got to have filters that force websites not to use too contrasty colors.