. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

{ Wednesday, December 3, 2003 }

Grey Grouse

One thing that makes me grumpy is that so many excellent weblogs have grey text. This is, I think, more prevalent on Moveable Type and Typepad blogs (as well as that really popular Blogger template that Mena Trott designed), as many of the templates provided have grey text. I even used one myself, though I changed the line spacing. That template is the least legible one of all, and I've stopped reading weblogs that use it, which, sadly, include some of my former favorites.

LINK | 8:58 AM | TB

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  { COMMENTS }

Not to mention that those templates are completely broken on Windows/IE. (Text often disappears because of a CSS bug, they force horizontal scrolling at any resolution, etc.) I wish there are was some way to retroactively re-template the zillion MT blogs with those default templates ...

Stewart | December 3, 2003 9:18 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What if the use a black background and a light grey text? Is that so bad?

Kyle | December 3, 2003 9:41 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maybe try reading 'em in a newsreader, then you can set whatever colors/fonts you like.

brian w | December 3, 2003 11:51 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oh, that's why I never see your name on my site meter.

Yes, Caterina, I've had a number of complaints about my template, most
recently from Gerrit Lansing. I'll have to think about this.

I've tried to enlarge the type size, which I was able to do once before, and for some reason now won't work.

Nick Piombino | December 3, 2003 8:19 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ah, but I have no problem with your site, Nick. You site is very legible!!

Caterina | December 3, 2003 8:51 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Glad to hear you weren't thinking of :::fait accompli :: because I've grown attached to that old template- and I do respect your opionion, Caterina!

I guess the ones I have trouble reading are the ones that are white on gray, gold on gray, one that is orange letters on gray/green-
(Michaela Cooper's Mikkarea...

Nick Piombino | December 3, 2003 10:13 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hmmm... I'm sure I remember some research on reading speed online that suggested that a dark grey on white was more readable than pure black - something to do with the contrast between pure black and white on most cheap n nasty monitors causing a kind of visual bleed.

Tho' I might have made that up.

c | December 4, 2003 7:09 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I think you did make that up. AFIAK, the best combos are black-on-(light)yellow for print, and white-on-(dark)blue for screen.

Stewart | December 4, 2003 3:25 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

But! I sure remembered wrong, at least accoring to this study of reading times on screen with different color combinations.

Black-on-white was best, followed by blue-on-white (which beat out white-on-blue). In general, dark-on-light beat out the reverse.

Stewart | December 4, 2003 3:31 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thanks for the link - I was having one of those lazy / anti-Google moments..!

In a It's-Friday kind of way, I've just noticed that they didn't test dark grey (#333333) on pure white. Damn those academics...

c | December 5, 2003 1:24 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You know you can adjust your gamma, right? If you haven't set your PowerBook to windows gamma (System Preferences: Displays: Color: Calibrate), give it a try. It'll make those grey on white sites much more legible.

Derek | December 5, 2003 11:30 AM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

{ Post a comment }
















. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .