Re:The next version of DuckDuckGo
by j4kp07 on Monday May 05, 2014 @08:48PM
(#7702270)
FWIW...and no disrespect meant, but I hope DDG does not follow this advice. Firstly, this is a developer. So he/she is not the key demographic you are targeting. Developers and the like don't understand that John Doe has no idea what "contrast" is or which button turns it down/up. Please note all of the references to "me" and "my" and his perfect color-correct 20/20 vision in his feedback.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The next version of DuckDuckGo
by edwintorok on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @10:30AM
(#7704662)
If it is hard to read for someone who is young and with perfect vision, how do you expect that someone with less than perfect vision / older / with worse monitors will be able to read it?
There are W3C standards for accessibility for a reason, and widely used sites should follow them.
Because the majority of readers on the internet skim pages and whether subconsciously or not, they are picking up on keywords, headlines, links and the like. If you take the approach to simply "make the text #000 and the page #fff", you are simply making matters worse.
Re:The next version of DuckDuckGo
by edwintorok on Wednesday May 07, 2014 @02:47AM
(#7708930)
If they can't read your site comfortably than why should they spend more time on your site than it takes to close the tab?
See my other comment, the recommendation is usually #333 on #fff, or at least try to follow the WCAG standards:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7704533
When I see a site with such low contrast I think "the owner of this site doesn't really care if people actually read the contents" so I usually just close it. Unless I know from a reliable source that the contents is actually something very very interesting, that I would want to read then I'll take the extra effort and try to read it.