And it's not like it would hurt the developers to be conscious of their choices.

There's actually nothing the developers can do about this particular issue other than to display all colors and allow colorblind people to see the colors that they can see.

For the newly made up feature, which doesn't exist yet, but already has an issue?

Simple. Instead of forcing colour, one could retain a no colour option maybe?

Done. Solved.

Everything should have this option. I personally have no colour vision issues, other than I find colour annoying in any output. There's a lot who prefer this too.

Agreed, although I would argue that maximal hash contrast should be default, and if people find they prefer less, they can turn it down.

If you're the sort of person who would think about adjusting it to suit your sensitivity to this kind of attack, you're likely not the sort of person that the feature is trying to protect anyhow.

Team https://no-color.org/ for life

One will not be surprised to see that Chalk chooses its own path via the stunningly opaque FORCE_COLOR=0 and is all :fu: to people who suggest otherwise <https://github.com/chalk/chalk/issues/547#issuecomment-11268...> One will especially enjoy the "get bent" response because I discovered that one issue by, you know, searching the issues <https://github.com/chalk/chalk/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20NO_COLO...>

It doesn't matter which colors the algorithm chooses so long as background/foreground are very distinguishable to as wide an audience as possible, and prev/next are likely to be distinguishable more often than not.

That's a lot of flexibility within which to do clever color math which accounts for the types of colorblindness according to their prevalence.

I think 9dev was saying that providing only a colorized version might make it unreadable to some people, not merely that they wouldn't benefit from the extra color information.