Is Dark Mode Such a Good Idea?(kevq.uk)
kevq.uk
Is Dark Mode Such a Good Idea?
https://kevq.uk/is-dark-mode-such-a-good-idea/
550 comments
Science is not a faith based system. If you doubt about the rigor of some study, by all means point the errors you find. In the meantime, I will trust those scientific studies more than subjective opinions in hackernews comments.
The study referenced by his reference is not very good.[1]
They use full white and full black for all modes. As we know, dark theme is typically white on dark gray (or equivalent), not pure white on pure black. I can't think of any dark mode that uses pure black. (AOSP, IOS, macOS, etc.)
This alone invalidates the study, because it doesn't reflect the real world. Science is only as good as it is rigorous, and if it fails to model the real world, then it's not very good.
Science, these days, seems to have become a faith based system, because most people don't usually review the content of the studies.
That (and bad science, like this study) is a shame.
1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872081351550...
They use full white and full black for all modes. As we know, dark theme is typically white on dark gray (or equivalent), not pure white on pure black. I can't think of any dark mode that uses pure black. (AOSP, IOS, macOS, etc.)
This alone invalidates the study, because it doesn't reflect the real world. Science is only as good as it is rigorous, and if it fails to model the real world, then it's not very good.
Science, these days, seems to have become a faith based system, because most people don't usually review the content of the studies.
That (and bad science, like this study) is a shame.
1: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001872081351550...
"Invalidates" might be a bit strong, since it still does show that white on black isn't a great choice. It just doesn't follow from the study that the average dark theme is worse than the average light theme.
> Science, these days, seems to have become a faith based system
> That (and bad science, like this study) is a shame.
Tangential, but this has indeed been a slow drift since the 1970s roughly. We are witnessing the consequences of that, now that entire generations of academics have been molded as such.
I think we need a vocal and principled reaffirmation of Positivism in science, to meaningfully move away from all the faith-based and broadly political conduct of scientific affairs at large (and the reporting thereof).
> That (and bad science, like this study) is a shame.
Tangential, but this has indeed been a slow drift since the 1970s roughly. We are witnessing the consequences of that, now that entire generations of academics have been molded as such.
I think we need a vocal and principled reaffirmation of Positivism in science, to meaningfully move away from all the faith-based and broadly political conduct of scientific affairs at large (and the reporting thereof).
iOS is pure black in dark mode.
it is absolutely not. 90% of visible UI is dark grey painted over a black background. a lot of apps also use dark tones too, like dark blue or green.
90% is a gross exaggeration. The Mail app is pure black[0]. Apps that have grey on black like Messages have styles carried over from the light version of apps — they weren’t specifically optimized for dark mode to improve readability. Other apps that I’ve checked: Music, Phone, Photos, Files, Calendar, even Twitter.
[0] https://www.litmus.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/bildschirm...
[0] https://www.litmus.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/bildschirm...
I don't see any blacks in that screenshot?
If you bring the image into a photo editor you'll find that the background of Mail's dark mode is RGB #000000, the purest digital black there is.
It’s hard to have a discussion when you act in bad faith. The background is #000000.
Maybe you’re not looking at it on a screen capable of true black?
Blue on black/dark gray is horrible for visual acuity.
Blues exist along a range of brightness values and blues work great in dark terminals and editors all day every day for many many people. I'm typing into a browser window surrounded by probably about 4 or 5 terminal and editor windows peeking out of the background with somewhere between 5 and 10 different shades of blue on dark grey backgrounds and they look clear, bright, and amazing. The dark background makes the blues pop.
Blue is objectively the hardest color to see. Amber would be so much better in this scenario.
[deleted]
or green like the Hombebrew default scheme in Terminal. non-techy people I used to work with called me the matrix because my screen was stacked with multiple terminal windows with the green text on dark background color scheme
> point the errors you find
All of those studies are studies of how other people experienced dark mode vs. normal mode.
All of my studies are studies of how I experience dark mode vs. normal mode.
I feel that my sample more closely aligns to the population I'm trying to study.
Also it mentions spectrum-shifting software like 'night light' or f.lux or whatever Android and Windows call it when they do this by default.
And the thing about dark-on-white being more visible than white-on-dark is just blatantly wrong and the military anecdote makes no sense, camo against dark background in the dark is going to be low contrast because the camo you wear in the dark is dark, muted colours.
All of those studies are studies of how other people experienced dark mode vs. normal mode.
All of my studies are studies of how I experience dark mode vs. normal mode.
I feel that my sample more closely aligns to the population I'm trying to study.
Also it mentions spectrum-shifting software like 'night light' or f.lux or whatever Android and Windows call it when they do this by default.
And the thing about dark-on-white being more visible than white-on-dark is just blatantly wrong and the military anecdote makes no sense, camo against dark background in the dark is going to be low contrast because the camo you wear in the dark is dark, muted colours.
It's easy to be wrong even about your own perception. You might think you like the dark mode because it strains your eyes less, but in reality you just like how it looks and you strain your eyes more, being more fatigued at the end of the day without even noticing. Or the other direction.
This whole "those studies are studies of how other people experienced X" is a typical argumentation scheme of esoteric fields like homeopathy, where science, logic and data is completely rejected and replaced with pure faith. Real studies can be criticized without relying on that trap.
This whole "those studies are studies of how other people experienced X" is a typical argumentation scheme of esoteric fields like homeopathy, where science, logic and data is completely rejected and replaced with pure faith. Real studies can be criticized without relying on that trap.
So you're telling me I'm wrong and I actually like bright mode more than dark mode?
We are literally discussing my subjective experiences here. And you're telling me I'm wrong. About my subjective experiences.
Ohhh-kay.
We are literally discussing my subjective experiences here. And you're telling me I'm wrong. About my subjective experiences.
Ohhh-kay.
No. They were pointing out it's possible that you prefer dark mode, even though it may not have the benefits you believe it does. Your preference may be more about aesthetic taste than a physiological response - and that's okay.
That's actually a pretty fair point. What I like may not be measurably easier for me.
I'm gonna lean in to your side. I've noticed ever since switching to a dark theme in my code editor that at the end of the day my eyes feel less tired. BUT (and big one) on the glossy screen of my phone, dark mode feels more straining to the eyes... How can this be so?
My notebook has a matte screen and barely reflects ambient light(s) back at me. I say barely to avoid saying "none" because surely someone will nitpick that it is reflecting a small amount of light etc.
The phone has a glossy screen, and it reflects every single thing it can back my eyes. Dark mode makes it even more "mirror like". And while I prefer the colours (specially if you're using the phone at night, with no ambient lights to bother), I acknowledge that it is more straining during most of the day. Even at night when it autoswitches to dark mode, I'll have some ambient illumination unless I'm at the cinema (not for a couple of months since lockdown) or basically trying to sleep (and I know I shouldn't be checking the phone if I'm trying to sleep).
Another data point: reading PDFs of books and conference papers on my computer (black on white) is tiresome, whereas reading the same on a kindle feels amazing. But then again, the kindles have won this battle a long time ago and nobody should be trying to read books or other media made for plant-based-paper on a screen anyway (and here I give e-ink a bit of leeway and consider it more plant-paper-like than a screen).
My notebook has a matte screen and barely reflects ambient light(s) back at me. I say barely to avoid saying "none" because surely someone will nitpick that it is reflecting a small amount of light etc.
The phone has a glossy screen, and it reflects every single thing it can back my eyes. Dark mode makes it even more "mirror like". And while I prefer the colours (specially if you're using the phone at night, with no ambient lights to bother), I acknowledge that it is more straining during most of the day. Even at night when it autoswitches to dark mode, I'll have some ambient illumination unless I'm at the cinema (not for a couple of months since lockdown) or basically trying to sleep (and I know I shouldn't be checking the phone if I'm trying to sleep).
Another data point: reading PDFs of books and conference papers on my computer (black on white) is tiresome, whereas reading the same on a kindle feels amazing. But then again, the kindles have won this battle a long time ago and nobody should be trying to read books or other media made for plant-based-paper on a screen anyway (and here I give e-ink a bit of leeway and consider it more plant-paper-like than a screen).
I use the pc mostly for music making and video/ photo edit, when i do so i like to work in an almost completely dark rook just some indirect lights, all the software i use has dark grey backgrounds by default, if i need to check something quickly on the internet the browser opens with a blank page (then it switches to dark or theme), that feels in my eyes like being in the nuclear test field.
Pretty much the classic "waking up late night, oh my [relative/so/person you care about] texted me at night, let see what--MY EYES!" -- but on PC
The hidden assumption you make is discussed as the Preference Satisfaction Thesis in the philosophy of welfare economics, it's the idea that people (subjectively) prefer what is best for them. Almost everybody agrees that the thesis is generally speaking false, although some people would argue that you should accept the preference satisfaction thesis as a rule of thumb if you are an ethical anti-paternalists.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, you could be like the smoker who prefers to have another cigarette even though it's bad for him. Not only that, it's even possible to find examples of people being wrong about their own subjective experiences. For example, people sometimes have cyclic personal preferences and one of the arguments against them is that their subjective feelings are wrong.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, you could be like the smoker who prefers to have another cigarette even though it's bad for him. Not only that, it's even possible to find examples of people being wrong about their own subjective experiences. For example, people sometimes have cyclic personal preferences and one of the arguments against them is that their subjective feelings are wrong.
> The hidden assumption you make is discussed as the Preference Satisfaction Thesis in the philosophy of welfare economics, it's the idea that people (subjectively) prefer what is best for them.
The hidden assumption in that framing is that there's an objective measure of "what is best for them" which somehow isn't based on what people subjectively prefer.
The hidden assumption in that framing is that there's an objective measure of "what is best for them" which somehow isn't based on what people subjectively prefer.
I think they were discussing the subject of, how our conscious estimation of our subjective experience can be way off. Which is a legitimate point?
Is it? I mean, serious question - aren't they they same thing? What IS our subjective experience if not our conscious estimation of how we experienced the thing? Is it possible to think you're enjoying something when really you're not, and if so then what the heck does that even mean?
You can enjoy what you want. The article we are discussing has measurable claims:
1. Easier to read
2. Eye Strain
3. Battery savings
Your subjective "studies" about that are irrelevant if you put them in contrast to proper scientific studies for those things - if you don't measure them properly. And that's not how you feel about it. That's what I was saying.
And it does not matter for that whether you like dark or bright mode, whether you follow the article or speak against it :) That might be part of the confusion.
1. Easier to read
2. Eye Strain
3. Battery savings
Your subjective "studies" about that are irrelevant if you put them in contrast to proper scientific studies for those things - if you don't measure them properly. And that's not how you feel about it. That's what I was saying.
And it does not matter for that whether you like dark or bright mode, whether you follow the article or speak against it :) That might be part of the confusion.
Easier to read for whom?
I have pretty bad eye floaters, and they're more visible in bright light. Having crud bouncing around my entire field of vision does not make for an easy or strain-free reading experience, so I enable dark mode whenever it's an option. I found checking Zulip at work pretty unpleasant until I realized I could enable dark mode.
If you're running a scientific study and basing your conclusions on the average of all participants, you might not pick up on things like that. And if you're running a scientific study on people with normal vision, a sufficiently strict definition of "normal vision" guarantees that you won't pick up on that, although the studies in question probably didn't use so strict a definition.
Even if dark mode is "scientifically worse" for most people, whatever that means, it's a useful accommodation. In fact, the Nielsen Norman Group article that this post links to argue against dark mode recommends dark mode as an accommodation for people with vision impairments.
I have pretty bad eye floaters, and they're more visible in bright light. Having crud bouncing around my entire field of vision does not make for an easy or strain-free reading experience, so I enable dark mode whenever it's an option. I found checking Zulip at work pretty unpleasant until I realized I could enable dark mode.
If you're running a scientific study and basing your conclusions on the average of all participants, you might not pick up on things like that. And if you're running a scientific study on people with normal vision, a sufficiently strict definition of "normal vision" guarantees that you won't pick up on that, although the studies in question probably didn't use so strict a definition.
Even if dark mode is "scientifically worse" for most people, whatever that means, it's a useful accommodation. In fact, the Nielsen Norman Group article that this post links to argue against dark mode recommends dark mode as an accommodation for people with vision impairments.
Yes, I'm aware. A school friend of mine was almost blind and he enabled the Windows white on black accessibility setting to make using the PC easier. I'm not arguing against that.
Although we're far from figuring out the mind in general, much less specifically to certain individuals, there's growing evidence that minds are a collective of sub-units which vie for conscious attention but are nonetheless active in subconscious even if "you" don't know it.
As an example, one part of your mind could be extremely conditioned to want to please and be with someone who is (objectively) abusing you and so you think you're having a good time when they do show you attention, while another part of your mind hates them for hurting you. There are countless examples of how different parts of a single mind can be at odds with each other, and depending on when you think deeply about an experience, can both have enjoyed and not enjoyed an experience.
It's not unreasonable to think that similar mechanics are at play with more subtle, less social-based mechanics. Food (and drugs) have a lot of this going on too.
As an example, one part of your mind could be extremely conditioned to want to please and be with someone who is (objectively) abusing you and so you think you're having a good time when they do show you attention, while another part of your mind hates them for hurting you. There are countless examples of how different parts of a single mind can be at odds with each other, and depending on when you think deeply about an experience, can both have enjoyed and not enjoyed an experience.
It's not unreasonable to think that similar mechanics are at play with more subtle, less social-based mechanics. Food (and drugs) have a lot of this going on too.
Well, eating at a restaurant with my wife, I said "This is really good!"
She looked askance, said "Well, its a little salty".
"Yeah, I guess it is."
"And not really very hot"
"Oh, yeah. Hm."
"And there no spice in it. Kinda plain."
"Dang, you're right"
So was I enjoying it? Or the experience of being out with the wife and not having to cook? Or just hungry and anything would do? And I'd mis-attributed what I was enjoying. Clearly my 'subjective experience' was not very, well, objective.
She looked askance, said "Well, its a little salty".
"Yeah, I guess it is."
"And not really very hot"
"Oh, yeah. Hm."
"And there no spice in it. Kinda plain."
"Dang, you're right"
So was I enjoying it? Or the experience of being out with the wife and not having to cook? Or just hungry and anything would do? And I'd mis-attributed what I was enjoying. Clearly my 'subjective experience' was not very, well, objective.
So when you first said "this is really good", was it?
Or did you just let your wife bully you into not liking something that you, personally, actually liked?
Or did you just let your wife bully you into not liking something that you, personally, actually liked?
That's a little harsh. Entertaining new information is not really 'bullying', not when I recognized the truth in what she said.
Sure I was enjoying myself. This is kind of the point of this thread. Your enjoyment is not a real measure of what's good or bad.
Sure I was enjoying myself. This is kind of the point of this thread. Your enjoyment is not a real measure of what's good or bad.
Not saying you didn't change your assessment after new sensory input (which is fine), but did you truly, honestly, change how much you were enjoying the /exact same physical sensations/ based on how much your partner thought you should be enjoying them?
I changed because I attended to what I was eating, and it wasn't very good.
Were you actually happier after you changed your mind that the food wasn't as good? I'm struggling to see this as evidence that your experience improved based on that conversation.
To me that sounds like an orthogonal statement from the article. The article is talking about objective performance and efficiency of the two and you're talking about how they make you feel.
Feeling efficient and being efficient are both valid bases for choosing, but the point of the article is that they don't have high correlation.
Feeling efficient and being efficient are both valid bases for choosing, but the point of the article is that they don't have high correlation.
You can be wrong about your perceptions, if you’ve read your Descartes.
Dark mode could be more aesthetically pleasing, and yet could also be less legible. I have personally experienced this. Dark mode is hard to read and find my place in compared to light mode. The white space helps me absorb the information and use it effectively. I say this while I still think dark mode looks better for many apps. I just choose light mode because of utility and usability.
Dark mode could be more aesthetically pleasing, and yet could also be less legible. I have personally experienced this. Dark mode is hard to read and find my place in compared to light mode. The white space helps me absorb the information and use it effectively. I say this while I still think dark mode looks better for many apps. I just choose light mode because of utility and usability.
I've never had issues with legibility in dark mode but then I apparently have very large pupils (to the point where when I got contact lenses the optician warned me about lens flares / halos) so maybe I don't get some of the benefits of day mode.
> Is it possible to think you're enjoying something when really you're not, and if so then what the heck does that even mean?
It's possible one can enjoy heroin, while it's simultaneously not beneficial for them to do so.
Just because something is subjectively positive, doesn't mean it's objectively positive.
It's possible one can enjoy heroin, while it's simultaneously not beneficial for them to do so.
Just because something is subjectively positive, doesn't mean it's objectively positive.
What IS our subjective experience if not our conscious estimation of how we experienced the thing?
regardless of the sample population, the difference is asking about perception vs. designing an experiment that provides consistent measures and accounts for bias. That's the definition of science. What you're arguing is "I know what I know", i.e. faith.
regardless of the sample population, the difference is asking about perception vs. designing an experiment that provides consistent measures and accounts for bias. That's the definition of science. What you're arguing is "I know what I know", i.e. faith.
[deleted]
Why not conduct your own experiment, using Science?
1. Start with a hypothesis, that "dark mode is less comfortable for me than light mode".
2. Design an experiment: find the sites that you use most. Use them for 10 minutes each in light mode and dark mode. Write down your impressions.
3. Build a conclusion: was your hypothesis correct? Was it partially correct for some sites?
Then you can adapt your behaviour according to your new, Scientifically-proven knowledge.
Science isn't faith-based, but there are a ton of problems with Academia and the way Science is practised and published at the moment. Science is also not connected with Academia - the scientific method doesn't need a university grant to work. You can literally conduct your own experiment in a couple of hours (as above) to get better information than any study. Not publishing it doesn't make it any less scientific.
It makes no sense to me to trust an unknown number of studies over my personal experience. I prefer dark mode. I'll stick with that. You do you.
1. Start with a hypothesis, that "dark mode is less comfortable for me than light mode".
2. Design an experiment: find the sites that you use most. Use them for 10 minutes each in light mode and dark mode. Write down your impressions.
3. Build a conclusion: was your hypothesis correct? Was it partially correct for some sites?
Then you can adapt your behaviour according to your new, Scientifically-proven knowledge.
Science isn't faith-based, but there are a ton of problems with Academia and the way Science is practised and published at the moment. Science is also not connected with Academia - the scientific method doesn't need a university grant to work. You can literally conduct your own experiment in a couple of hours (as above) to get better information than any study. Not publishing it doesn't make it any less scientific.
It makes no sense to me to trust an unknown number of studies over my personal experience. I prefer dark mode. I'll stick with that. You do you.
Unfortunately your proposed study design does not control for biases. For example, say I'm an audiophile comparing two audio formats, x and y, and I hear y is remarkably better. If I compare them side by side, my own brain might fool me that y is better. The way to control that is to do a blind test, where I won't know which one is x or y.
Also, asking people their impressions can be helpful in the human aspect of the research, but quantitatively you need some sort of metric you can evaluate their experience on. For example, you'd assign a task and see how well people did comparing the two modes, while also making sure the difference is statistically significant (meaning it wasn't just as likely to be chance).
This is just the beginning of where good study design starts. You'd also do things like assigning the modes themselves randomly, so to go back to the audiophile example, I might notice if it's always x and then y, but not if it's scrambled. You'd could go further and try to stratify the groups, so for example making sure one group isn't all elderly people and the other young. It goes on and on...
So while the scientific method is nice, especially for introducing science in educational contexts, the methodology and rationale behind research is much more deliberate and involved. By all means they can try out things themselves, but no, they will not "get better information than any study".
Also, asking people their impressions can be helpful in the human aspect of the research, but quantitatively you need some sort of metric you can evaluate their experience on. For example, you'd assign a task and see how well people did comparing the two modes, while also making sure the difference is statistically significant (meaning it wasn't just as likely to be chance).
This is just the beginning of where good study design starts. You'd also do things like assigning the modes themselves randomly, so to go back to the audiophile example, I might notice if it's always x and then y, but not if it's scrambled. You'd could go further and try to stratify the groups, so for example making sure one group isn't all elderly people and the other young. It goes on and on...
So while the scientific method is nice, especially for introducing science in educational contexts, the methodology and rationale behind research is much more deliberate and involved. By all means they can try out things themselves, but no, they will not "get better information than any study".
But that's the point. I don't care about anyone else's preferences. I'm not trying to find the best option out of the two for anyone else but me. My biases are the thing I'm trying to measure here :)
In my experience, that kind of design would be bad. I prefer light themes, but whenever I've used some app in dark mode and switch to a light one, the experience is inevitably jarring, and completely faithful to all the sun-burns-my-eyes jokes made about light themes. But it's fine the next day.
One of the more important parts of the studies referenced in the NNGroup article the blog post in the OP is referring to is that they did experiments between people rather than subjecting people to different conditions consecutively. When the initial light-dark contrast isn't present, people's fatigue ratings were about equal for both modes.
Moreover, people perceived both modes equally hard to read, but were actually more efficient in reading lightmode text.
That advantage is driven largely by the sheer amount of light - some researchers did an experiment where they cranked up the brightness on a dark theme so the experienced brightness was the same and it was just as readable as a light theme. But then you're using a crapton of electricity since you're turning dark-hued pixels to be super bright.
One of the more important parts of the studies referenced in the NNGroup article the blog post in the OP is referring to is that they did experiments between people rather than subjecting people to different conditions consecutively. When the initial light-dark contrast isn't present, people's fatigue ratings were about equal for both modes.
Moreover, people perceived both modes equally hard to read, but were actually more efficient in reading lightmode text.
That advantage is driven largely by the sheer amount of light - some researchers did an experiment where they cranked up the brightness on a dark theme so the experienced brightness was the same and it was just as readable as a light theme. But then you're using a crapton of electricity since you're turning dark-hued pixels to be super bright.
>It makes no sense to me to trust an unknown number of studies over my personal experience
Your personal experience is incapable of judging your performance in visual-acuity tasks and proofreading tasks, or determining the level of eyestrain caused when using light or dark mode.
Meanwhile, the scientists aren't trying to change your mind over which one is "more comfortable." They are trying to determine why you find something more comfortable and how well your the various options perform.
Your personal experience is incapable of judging your performance in visual-acuity tasks and proofreading tasks, or determining the level of eyestrain caused when using light or dark mode.
Meanwhile, the scientists aren't trying to change your mind over which one is "more comfortable." They are trying to determine why you find something more comfortable and how well your the various options perform.
While this commentator invested far less effort than the scientists in reaching his result about dark mode, he also has no benefits from you choosing to believe him or not. You are in fact choosing to see the brand "science" as something transcendental that doesn't concern any incentive structures, which if false and opens you to lots of manipulation.
I am just wondering does the author alao distrust science when it comes to medical treatments and the law of gravity, or does is his distrust highly selective.
pretty selective.
Maths has proofs. Logical reasoning from first arguments that a thing is true or not. It either is, or is not, proven. End of.
Physics as applied maths, pretty solid. We need to conduct experiments to verify that nature agrees with our mathematical constructs, but on the whole these are simple and unequivocal. e.g . gravity. Particle physics gets dodgy because of the vast range of collision results - statistics starts creeping in. Rather than being able to say that particle A collides with particle B to produce particles D an E, we now have a statistical chance that somethng might happen.
Chemistry as applied physics, again, pretty solid. Everything has to be tested by experiment, and experiment frequently throws up surprises, but if a reacts with B in Chicago, it probably does in Moscow too.
Biology as applied chemistry. Mostly solid. It gets massively complex, and so the temptation to resort to statistics is overwhelming and most biological papers start talking about statistical probabilities rather than actual results. But the basic biology is mostly the same for most subjects, and if the conclusion is simple (virology and the effectiveness of vaccines, for example) then we're all good.
Any social science as applied biology: not much. This is really dodgy territory where the experiment design totally dominates the result, and the result is statistical data that has to be massaged into a definitive statement. This is p-hacking territory, where experiments are largely unreproducible, very subject to bias, cultural references, and academia politics. E.g. whether creativity shares a limited resource pool with willpower - highly subjective, highly variable between individuals, hihgly suspect if your paper cites this as a proven result.
Not all science is worthy of the same level of trust. The scientific method is trustworthy. Academia is not.
Maths has proofs. Logical reasoning from first arguments that a thing is true or not. It either is, or is not, proven. End of.
Physics as applied maths, pretty solid. We need to conduct experiments to verify that nature agrees with our mathematical constructs, but on the whole these are simple and unequivocal. e.g . gravity. Particle physics gets dodgy because of the vast range of collision results - statistics starts creeping in. Rather than being able to say that particle A collides with particle B to produce particles D an E, we now have a statistical chance that somethng might happen.
Chemistry as applied physics, again, pretty solid. Everything has to be tested by experiment, and experiment frequently throws up surprises, but if a reacts with B in Chicago, it probably does in Moscow too.
Biology as applied chemistry. Mostly solid. It gets massively complex, and so the temptation to resort to statistics is overwhelming and most biological papers start talking about statistical probabilities rather than actual results. But the basic biology is mostly the same for most subjects, and if the conclusion is simple (virology and the effectiveness of vaccines, for example) then we're all good.
Any social science as applied biology: not much. This is really dodgy territory where the experiment design totally dominates the result, and the result is statistical data that has to be massaged into a definitive statement. This is p-hacking territory, where experiments are largely unreproducible, very subject to bias, cultural references, and academia politics. E.g. whether creativity shares a limited resource pool with willpower - highly subjective, highly variable between individuals, hihgly suspect if your paper cites this as a proven result.
Not all science is worthy of the same level of trust. The scientific method is trustworthy. Academia is not.
The subject in question is not some fuzzy social science: this is a straightforward assessment of reading ability for a given color scheme. You access objective metrics like ability to detect errors, reading speed, accuracy, etc.
Arguing with this is like disputing the fact that high heels make for terrible running shoes. Research in question with be quite similar.
Arguing with this is like disputing the fact that high heels make for terrible running shoes. Research in question with be quite similar.
Medical treatments can be really faulty too.
> If you doubt about the rigor of some study, by all means point the errors you find.
Sampling. It probably feels good hand-waving away the problem of "does this study apply to everyone?" by introducing the "representative sample" construct, but it has its problems and I doubt they will be ever solved. You can't speak for everyone when you have several thousands samples -- out of ~8 billion people.
This is kind of akin to that artificially absurd example of "on average, every human on Earth has one testicle". (And don't get nitpicky here, please; it might be "median" or another term, and that's not the point.)
What your parent poster says is that this article is kind of hiding behind science to be able to claim a generalisation it makes is true. Which it still isn't. Most people I asked said they prefer dark mode. Some said they like light mode. This article changes none of that.
Sampling. It probably feels good hand-waving away the problem of "does this study apply to everyone?" by introducing the "representative sample" construct, but it has its problems and I doubt they will be ever solved. You can't speak for everyone when you have several thousands samples -- out of ~8 billion people.
This is kind of akin to that artificially absurd example of "on average, every human on Earth has one testicle". (And don't get nitpicky here, please; it might be "median" or another term, and that's not the point.)
What your parent poster says is that this article is kind of hiding behind science to be able to claim a generalisation it makes is true. Which it still isn't. Most people I asked said they prefer dark mode. Some said they like light mode. This article changes none of that.
> This is kind of akin to that artificially absurd example of "on average, every human on Earth has one testicle".
No. If I claim everyone has 0.5 testicles, that's bad science. If I randomly choose a large enough number of subjects and report that approximately 50% have two testicles and approximately 50% have no testicles, with error bars, p-values, etc., saying that you don't trust this because I am trying to make a career and you prefer to follow your own experience, which after looking between your legs clearly shows that 100% of people have two testicles, would be quite stupid. If I chose only 3 people, or all of them are male or female, or I make any other mistake, point the mistake, but don't attack me personally, and much less science in general.
For example, I followed the link to the study by the Nielsen Norman Group and then the reference to the study of Piepenbrock. They explain well their sampling method, with different groups by age and depending on vision problems. You can clearly see the individual results and the variance, and it is obvious that generalizing to the 100% of population would be wrong, but there are some very clear trends. Calling these researchers "someone trying to p-hack their way to a publishable result that's sensational enough to advance their career" without any proof whatsoever is insulting.
To be clear, I do not intend that anyone changes habits because of these studies. I agree that this is subjective enough to make it a personal decision. But as a scientist trying to make a career, I found the above comment very disrespectful.
No. If I claim everyone has 0.5 testicles, that's bad science. If I randomly choose a large enough number of subjects and report that approximately 50% have two testicles and approximately 50% have no testicles, with error bars, p-values, etc., saying that you don't trust this because I am trying to make a career and you prefer to follow your own experience, which after looking between your legs clearly shows that 100% of people have two testicles, would be quite stupid. If I chose only 3 people, or all of them are male or female, or I make any other mistake, point the mistake, but don't attack me personally, and much less science in general.
For example, I followed the link to the study by the Nielsen Norman Group and then the reference to the study of Piepenbrock. They explain well their sampling method, with different groups by age and depending on vision problems. You can clearly see the individual results and the variance, and it is obvious that generalizing to the 100% of population would be wrong, but there are some very clear trends. Calling these researchers "someone trying to p-hack their way to a publishable result that's sensational enough to advance their career" without any proof whatsoever is insulting.
To be clear, I do not intend that anyone changes habits because of these studies. I agree that this is subjective enough to make it a personal decision. But as a scientist trying to make a career, I found the above comment very disrespectful.
I apologise then. I didn't mean to insult scientists. I was more trying to point out the difference between The Scientific Method and Academic Practice.
Especially in the social sciences, there's been a whole discussion recently about how our current system of evaluating and rewarding scientists is not benefitting Science. There's even been high-profile commentators disputing whether the social sciences are actually Science at all.
As you're a scientist I won't bother explaining this to you. I'm sure you're aware of the problems here.
So my point is that for a study like this, there's lots of room for playing statistical games in order to achieve a more "sensational" result that is more publishable and more likely to get cited. We know this happens and we know this is especially rife in this area of study. So I have become much more sceptical of social-science studies showing broad generalised results about a subject applying to the whole human race. Especially if those studies contravene some commonly-held view about the subject. My default position has moved from "well, they know what they're doing so there must be something to it", to "I'm going to assume that they p-hacked their way to a sensational result until I have evidence to prove otherwise".
I might be wrong in taking that stance. I will change it if I have better evidence.
Especially in the social sciences, there's been a whole discussion recently about how our current system of evaluating and rewarding scientists is not benefitting Science. There's even been high-profile commentators disputing whether the social sciences are actually Science at all.
As you're a scientist I won't bother explaining this to you. I'm sure you're aware of the problems here.
So my point is that for a study like this, there's lots of room for playing statistical games in order to achieve a more "sensational" result that is more publishable and more likely to get cited. We know this happens and we know this is especially rife in this area of study. So I have become much more sceptical of social-science studies showing broad generalised results about a subject applying to the whole human race. Especially if those studies contravene some commonly-held view about the subject. My default position has moved from "well, they know what they're doing so there must be something to it", to "I'm going to assume that they p-hacked their way to a sensational result until I have evidence to prove otherwise".
I might be wrong in taking that stance. I will change it if I have better evidence.
Fair enough, and apologies accepted. I agree that many social studies lack rigor. And, unfortunately, it also happens quite a lot with more technical topics in which it is much easier to be objective.
I get easily triggered when science is presented as a matter of faith, but in fact I totally agree with your skeptical point of view.
I get easily triggered when science is presented as a matter of faith, but in fact I totally agree with your skeptical point of view.
> by all means point the errors you find
That it's conducted on humans (a.k.a. very small sample, not generalizable, non-objective metrics, hard to remove observer bias etc.)? I think regardless of personal opinion, just based on a Bayesian / base rate mental model, you should default to disbelieving any published social studies (I refuse to call it "science") that haven't been rigorously replicated.
That it's conducted on humans (a.k.a. very small sample, not generalizable, non-objective metrics, hard to remove observer bias etc.)? I think regardless of personal opinion, just based on a Bayesian / base rate mental model, you should default to disbelieving any published social studies (I refuse to call it "science") that haven't been rigorously replicated.
> If you doubt about the rigor of some study, by all means point the errors you find. In the meantime, I will trust those scientific studies more than subjective opinions in hackernews comments.
Maybe, but most published studies are close to pure garbage and even in clinical trials which is supposed to be the holy grail of Science there's cherry picking, improper design, and lack of repeatability across the board.
"Science" is only as good as the humans conducting it. Unfortunately us humans are pretty bad at doing Science.
Maybe, but most published studies are close to pure garbage and even in clinical trials which is supposed to be the holy grail of Science there's cherry picking, improper design, and lack of repeatability across the board.
"Science" is only as good as the humans conducting it. Unfortunately us humans are pretty bad at doing Science.
Nice.
Well, arguably science is just the superior faith-based system. Nothing is ever proven, but it contains a method to constantly find the theory most likely to deserve your faith.
That's my problem with science (and I am an atheist who is 100% for the scientific method and even have a PhD):
The "real" science has no absolutes. But the problem is that it is very difficult for humans to operationalize it that way. Take for example eggs and cholesterol. I remember in the late 80s, my father (also a scientist/biologist) stopped eating eggs because apparently Science said eggs are bad for you (due to some papers)... later in the mid/late 90s Science said that eggs are actually not bad, but good for you (because, even if they where high on cholesterol, it was the good cholesterol).
So, for people (even other scientists!) that are not experts in the subject, it becomes a matter of belief... believe in the papers some random team published, because it was published in Nature.
> Nothing is ever proven, but it contains a method to constantly find the theory most likely to deserve your faith.
I love this quote!
The "real" science has no absolutes. But the problem is that it is very difficult for humans to operationalize it that way. Take for example eggs and cholesterol. I remember in the late 80s, my father (also a scientist/biologist) stopped eating eggs because apparently Science said eggs are bad for you (due to some papers)... later in the mid/late 90s Science said that eggs are actually not bad, but good for you (because, even if they where high on cholesterol, it was the good cholesterol).
So, for people (even other scientists!) that are not experts in the subject, it becomes a matter of belief... believe in the papers some random team published, because it was published in Nature.
> Nothing is ever proven, but it contains a method to constantly find the theory most likely to deserve your faith.
I love this quote!
A method that one can choose to follow or to fake.
Science is faith based for the non-scientific. As you put it yourself, it is about trusting studies and the institutions that produced it (including whatever in them creates the incentives for p-hacking).
No scientist expects anyone to trust studies or the institutions producing them. So, that's wrong from the beginning. The expectation of refuting something is just a bit higher than "I don't believe it!", e.g. read the study and show flaws in it - or make a counter study which shows different results. Maybe combine both.
Comparing this to faith where from the start you cannot check anything doesn't make any sense (if you know that something is true or false it isn't faith anymore, that's the point).
Comparing this to faith where from the start you cannot check anything doesn't make any sense (if you know that something is true or false it isn't faith anymore, that's the point).
That's not really true. Scientists do (and expect others to) respect "established" and "trusted" journals that group studies together in some kind of authentication process. Even open journals like Sci-Hub are like this.
Otherwise, you could believe any PDF you can find on Google and know it to be true and representative. What if someone wrote a net to generate 10,000,000 studies on the same set of topics and scattered them throughout the Internet? Given a random study, you wouldn't know whether it's real or generated, without the "authority" aspect of a journal.
Now, whether or not the journals actually do a good job at authenticating the studies is another question. But, the principle stands that they are what we trust as consumers of science (a role which scientific researchers themselves play as well).
Otherwise, you could believe any PDF you can find on Google and know it to be true and representative. What if someone wrote a net to generate 10,000,000 studies on the same set of topics and scattered them throughout the Internet? Given a random study, you wouldn't know whether it's real or generated, without the "authority" aspect of a journal.
Now, whether or not the journals actually do a good job at authenticating the studies is another question. But, the principle stands that they are what we trust as consumers of science (a role which scientific researchers themselves play as well).
I agree with what you're saying. However, I think the parent's point is that people without education or a good understanding of the scientific process feel like they are accepting it (or not) based on faith.
I think this total lack of understanding of how the scientific process works is one of the biggest problems facing America today.
I think this total lack of understanding of how the scientific process works is one of the biggest problems facing America today.
and yet if you dare to disagree with a scientist (as we see in the comments here) you can expect to be shouted down because SCIENCE!
> Science is not a faith based system
False. If you did not do the study/experiment yourself, you are putting your faith in scientists that did. This is philosophically equivalent to someone putting their faith in, say a monk, or a pastor.
If you go one level deeper, the monk might say, 'do X penance for Y years to verify Z claim', then it's up to you whether you want to follow that route or not. Until then, his claim is not unfalsifiable, like many skeptics claim.
Even for mundane day-to-day claims, 'science', as commonly understood, falls short.
e.g. Science cannot prove to me that a mango tastes sweet, without putting the condition that I must taste it. The only 'proof' it can provide is 'Taste it and see for yourself'. If I say, 'I will only taste it AFTER you prove it is sweet', then nothing will happen. Because Taste is subjective. Yet, everyone, 'miraculously' is able to come to a consensus.
There are truths that are individually/subjectively verifiable, but collectively/objectively unverifiable.
The denigration of the former type of truths is something armchair scientists must avoid. Real scientists never denigrate them.
False. If you did not do the study/experiment yourself, you are putting your faith in scientists that did. This is philosophically equivalent to someone putting their faith in, say a monk, or a pastor.
If you go one level deeper, the monk might say, 'do X penance for Y years to verify Z claim', then it's up to you whether you want to follow that route or not. Until then, his claim is not unfalsifiable, like many skeptics claim.
Even for mundane day-to-day claims, 'science', as commonly understood, falls short.
e.g. Science cannot prove to me that a mango tastes sweet, without putting the condition that I must taste it. The only 'proof' it can provide is 'Taste it and see for yourself'. If I say, 'I will only taste it AFTER you prove it is sweet', then nothing will happen. Because Taste is subjective. Yet, everyone, 'miraculously' is able to come to a consensus.
There are truths that are individually/subjectively verifiable, but collectively/objectively unverifiable.
The denigration of the former type of truths is something armchair scientists must avoid. Real scientists never denigrate them.
No, you don't understand science.
Science can define what a sweet taste is, by assigning it to a set of measurements that define the boundaries of sweetness, as a technical term.
Is that sweetness to you? Nobody cares. It's a technical term that you need to accept to participate in the conversation productively.
Science can define what a sweet taste is, by assigning it to a set of measurements that define the boundaries of sweetness, as a technical term.
Is that sweetness to you? Nobody cares. It's a technical term that you need to accept to participate in the conversation productively.
> It's a technical term that you need to accept
"need to accept" is a "subjective" consensus - meaning it is useless if the terminology is not accepted.
Acceptance is a subjective decision, at which point you're simply going by majority vote. And majority is not a barometer for truth.
Science absolutely cares about subjective acceptance, and faith in experts.
"need to accept" is a "subjective" consensus - meaning it is useless if the terminology is not accepted.
Acceptance is a subjective decision, at which point you're simply going by majority vote. And majority is not a barometer for truth.
Science absolutely cares about subjective acceptance, and faith in experts.
>Science is not a faith based system
Some disciplines certainly are, you only need to look at the current rigamaroo around COVID and climate change models. Some 'models' saying millions of deaths before being re-engineered a few weeks later to be mere thousands, or predicting huge swaths of the Earth being uninhabitable by now, etc. You can also look into climate models that predicted perilous cooling on a global scale from decades past.
These sorts of model, which are presented as capital S Science, are at best guesstimates, that don't receive nearly the amount of popular coverage when they shown to be wrong in the fullness of time (or indeed need to be reinforced by changing data). If a model is no better than a coin toss that's faith based to me.
A recent example; WHO "walks backs" statement made a day before about data showing that asymptomatic carriers infecting others is very rare. At the same time saying between 6% and 41% of the population may be asymptomatic with a 16% error margin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0G7jb78jc
These sorts of model, which are presented as capital S Science, are at best guesstimates, that don't receive nearly the amount of popular coverage when they shown to be wrong in the fullness of time (or indeed need to be reinforced by changing data). If a model is no better than a coin toss that's faith based to me.
A recent example; WHO "walks backs" statement made a day before about data showing that asymptomatic carriers infecting others is very rare. At the same time saying between 6% and 41% of the population may be asymptomatic with a 16% error margin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0G7jb78jc
I also cringed at the "I don't trust science" vibe, but I also don't feel like someone should have to be an expert in statistics AND eyestrain measurement AND visible spectrum of light in order to credibly disagree with the results of a study. IOW, we shouldn't be able to reject someone's disagreement merely because they're not credentialed enough; that would lead to a tyranny of supposed expertise.
I should have made it clear. I trust the scientific method. I don't trust that that method is being rigorously applied by social scientists seeking tenure.
So, in the meantime you will use light mode... against your own comfort?
Science might tell me that on average, most people prefer beer to wine.
That doesn't mean I preach to someone that they shouldn't be drinking wine because beer is superior.
That doesn't mean I preach to someone that they shouldn't be drinking wine because beer is superior.
[deleted]
> If you doubt about the rigor of some study...
I doubt the rigor of MOST studies.
I doubt the rigor of MOST studies.
You are overstating the results of such studies or use your datapoint out of context. Just because A is on average better than B, does not mean that A is better for everyone.
If you have a study that shows that most people do(n't) like pineapple on pizza (maybe make a blog post "is pineapple on pizza such a good idea?"), that is rather unrelated to someone likeing pineapple on pizza or not and is not claiming that all people don't like pineapple on pizza.
Darkmode is a nice thing! It feels like some people hype it as the 'one true better solution to everything' or a strictly superior version, when it boils down to preferance and minor differences. In the end you probably want to have both options (if you have the capacity to support them).
If you have a study that shows that most people do(n't) like pineapple on pizza (maybe make a blog post "is pineapple on pizza such a good idea?"), that is rather unrelated to someone likeing pineapple on pizza or not and is not claiming that all people don't like pineapple on pizza.
Darkmode is a nice thing! It feels like some people hype it as the 'one true better solution to everything' or a strictly superior version, when it boils down to preferance and minor differences. In the end you probably want to have both options (if you have the capacity to support them).
> Just because A is on average better than B, does not mean that A is better for everyone.
You're proving the point, how would you even know for sure if you are A or B? You would have to try it out anyway.
You're proving the point, how would you even know for sure if you are A or B? You would have to try it out anyway.
Dark mode has 2 main advantages:
- Better rendering of hues. This comes in nice for things like syntax coloring, or photo editing. The eye is evaluating a color next to the absence of light, instead of next to washed out light.
- Less eye strain when ambient light is insufficient. Ideally the brightness of the screen should be within the same range of brighness as the surroundings.
In my home office, I have about 20,000 lumens of light shining in a relatively small space, at a temperature of 5000K. In other words, it's a sunny day in my office regardless of the weather or the time of day. A quick and easy way to figure out if you have enough light (or too much) is to step back and point your cell phone camera at your workspace. Take a photo without HDR mode. Can you make out details of what's on your screen AND its surroundings? For most people, the screen will be washed out because the ambient light is way underpowered. Dark mode is a good response to that situation.
With quality and variable lighting, you can have the best setup: use light mode during the day; switch to dark mode when it suits you, whether it be for a task that works better in that mode or for evening time when you prefer to start sending a signal of sleepiness to your body.
- Better rendering of hues. This comes in nice for things like syntax coloring, or photo editing. The eye is evaluating a color next to the absence of light, instead of next to washed out light.
- Less eye strain when ambient light is insufficient. Ideally the brightness of the screen should be within the same range of brighness as the surroundings.
In my home office, I have about 20,000 lumens of light shining in a relatively small space, at a temperature of 5000K. In other words, it's a sunny day in my office regardless of the weather or the time of day. A quick and easy way to figure out if you have enough light (or too much) is to step back and point your cell phone camera at your workspace. Take a photo without HDR mode. Can you make out details of what's on your screen AND its surroundings? For most people, the screen will be washed out because the ambient light is way underpowered. Dark mode is a good response to that situation.
With quality and variable lighting, you can have the best setup: use light mode during the day; switch to dark mode when it suits you, whether it be for a task that works better in that mode or for evening time when you prefer to start sending a signal of sleepiness to your body.
As someone who uses both dark mode and light mode, a major factor is if I'm in a darker area. When I read books on my phone, I prefer dark mode at night and light mode during the day.
To what extent are these studies testing these sub-optimal reading conditions? Are they just testing optimal conditions which could have different results?
To what extent are these studies testing these sub-optimal reading conditions? Are they just testing optimal conditions which could have different results?
Any comments on optimal lighting for a home office? Or, as your setup is?
A nice bright working area sounds nice. Bonus if it's good light, and not something that will feel unnatural.
Sidenote: I've got a nice big window that I face, and I often want it open, but my room is so dark I have to keep it mostly closed as it overpowers my monitor, eyes, etc.
A nice bright working area sounds nice. Bonus if it's good light, and not something that will feel unnatural.
Sidenote: I've got a nice big window that I face, and I often want it open, but my room is so dark I have to keep it mostly closed as it overpowers my monitor, eyes, etc.
I have several compact fluorescent bulbs each outputting 8,600 lumen. Since the bulbs measure about 10" long, the only fixture I found to work is suspend a bare socket and attach a giant paper lantern.
When selecting light, I pay attention to the temperature of the light (I like 5000K for daylight) and the Color Rendering Index (CRI) which is a measure of the quality of light. Technically you can make "white" with only 3 wavelengths, however the broader the spectrum of light (many wavelengths), the better it shows on reflected surfaces. It's not highly relevant to the topic of eye strain with screens but it's a nice touch that makes the area more comfortable.
Recently, I started exploring LED lights and there are some really good options appearing on the market. I tested some spot lights with a CRI of 92 which look even better than halogens. So when it comes time for me to replace my CFLs, I might end up with a better option.
When selecting light, I pay attention to the temperature of the light (I like 5000K for daylight) and the Color Rendering Index (CRI) which is a measure of the quality of light. Technically you can make "white" with only 3 wavelengths, however the broader the spectrum of light (many wavelengths), the better it shows on reflected surfaces. It's not highly relevant to the topic of eye strain with screens but it's a nice touch that makes the area more comfortable.
Recently, I started exploring LED lights and there are some really good options appearing on the market. I tested some spot lights with a CRI of 92 which look even better than halogens. So when it comes time for me to replace my CFLs, I might end up with a better option.
My home office is the only place I really feel the benefit of Philips Hue bulbs. Being able to fine-tune and change the white color temperature throughout the day (and night) is fantastic.
Personally, I prefer indirect light. So I have light strips which illuminate the wall behind my monitor , and a few other bulbs directed at the ceiling which reflect light back down.
Personally, I prefer indirect light. So I have light strips which illuminate the wall behind my monitor , and a few other bulbs directed at the ceiling which reflect light back down.
Personally I just have different light profiles on my monitor and I dim it as my room is dim.
Similar trick to you, I just try to reduce brightness until it looks like a kindle—it’s matte and blends in with other objects in room.
Similar trick to you, I just try to reduce brightness until it looks like a kindle—it’s matte and blends in with other objects in room.
I think you have multiple misunderstandings about how science provides valuable results. The first thing I want to say is that I don't devalue your personal experience.
I am unaware of any fighter jet seat problem. If you use the average, you're actually pretty likely (depending on the shape of the distribution, which in the case of phenotypes like body size, are normally distributed when broken down by gender) to find the size that accomodates the most people (you could also consider using the median, or the most populated class, or add a few adjustable parts).
Science hasn't reached the point where it can create truly personalized models that account for your genetics, personal feelings, and other details about your setup. It would be nice if we had that kind of ability, but the data isn't there (either the quality or quantity of the data). however, it's generally understood that these sorts of studies provide useful evidence for people who are making policy for large numbers of people.
Also, what you did at home wasn't an experiment (did you use positive and negative controls and blinding), it was just a measurement of your personal preferences. Again, not trying to deny your personal experience, but a good scientific study does trump your actual experience, when applied to the population at large.
I am unaware of any fighter jet seat problem. If you use the average, you're actually pretty likely (depending on the shape of the distribution, which in the case of phenotypes like body size, are normally distributed when broken down by gender) to find the size that accomodates the most people (you could also consider using the median, or the most populated class, or add a few adjustable parts).
Science hasn't reached the point where it can create truly personalized models that account for your genetics, personal feelings, and other details about your setup. It would be nice if we had that kind of ability, but the data isn't there (either the quality or quantity of the data). however, it's generally understood that these sorts of studies provide useful evidence for people who are making policy for large numbers of people.
Also, what you did at home wasn't an experiment (did you use positive and negative controls and blinding), it was just a measurement of your personal preferences. Again, not trying to deny your personal experience, but a good scientific study does trump your actual experience, when applied to the population at large.
The fighter-jet seat problem is pretty famous.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
The article you cited is an interesting just-so explanation but it's mostly narrative, not really correct. It's based on this book https://www.harpercollins.ca/9780062358363/the-end-of-averag... which espouses some rather non-quantitative concepts (it seems like the author had a hobbyhorse and they rode it as far as they could).
I don't know that it's "pretty famous", as I find only a few references to it (the book I mentioned, the article you mentioned, and a few other references).
I worked in biology for a long time and work with ML datasets that make money based on statistical analysis of people properties and the idea that "no one is average" is technically correct and also completely missing the point of scientific analysis (I definitely acknowledge that science doesn't do a good job with personalization).
I don't know that it's "pretty famous", as I find only a few references to it (the book I mentioned, the article you mentioned, and a few other references).
I worked in biology for a long time and work with ML datasets that make money based on statistical analysis of people properties and the idea that "no one is average" is technically correct and also completely missing the point of scientific analysis (I definitely acknowledge that science doesn't do a good job with personalization).
> I don't know that it's "pretty famous"
I'm sorry you haven't heard of it but it's fairly well known.
Here's it on QI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9UuMFwzCE
I'm sorry you haven't heard of it but it's fairly well known.
Here's it on QI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch9UuMFwzCE
It’s shown up on HN before at minimum.
My father was an instrumentation engineer for the DoD and much of what he worked on during his time at the high speed test track out at WSMR did involve ejection seat testing.
They had an assortment of very expensive mannequins rigged up with a multitude of sensors to determine strain or torsional effects that were used to determine whether the ejection was "survivable." I believe the certification process included the smallest possible dummy that could survive the seat ejection, and the largest that would fit.
Too small and the seat couldn't be rigged with enough ballast to prevent the acceleration of the ejection motor from crushing the pilot's spine. Too large and the seat wouldn't clear the tail or other aircraft structures. If I understand it correctly, the seats are configured to the pilot for this reason.
It's absolutely true that designing around averages is not how ejection seats are constructed or, for that matter, tested.
They had an assortment of very expensive mannequins rigged up with a multitude of sensors to determine strain or torsional effects that were used to determine whether the ejection was "survivable." I believe the certification process included the smallest possible dummy that could survive the seat ejection, and the largest that would fit.
Too small and the seat couldn't be rigged with enough ballast to prevent the acceleration of the ejection motor from crushing the pilot's spine. Too large and the seat wouldn't clear the tail or other aircraft structures. If I understand it correctly, the seats are configured to the pilot for this reason.
It's absolutely true that designing around averages is not how ejection seats are constructed or, for that matter, tested.
I strongly urge you to become familiar with the fighter-jet-seat problem if you're working with humans and applying averages.
"no-one is average" is more than technically correct. If your scientific analysis is missing this key point about humans, then it's basically worthless because it doesn't apply to real humans. This is what the US Air Force found: you have to personalise. You can never apply a generic result to an individual and have a good outcome.
"no-one is average" is more than technically correct. If your scientific analysis is missing this key point about humans, then it's basically worthless because it doesn't apply to real humans. This is what the US Air Force found: you have to personalise. You can never apply a generic result to an individual and have a good outcome.
I don't think he is misunderstanding anything.
Using the average sometimes works, some times doesn't. Number of arms an average person has is less than 2.
Definitely check out the fighter jet seat problem.
Using the average sometimes works, some times doesn't. Number of arms an average person has is less than 2.
Definitely check out the fighter jet seat problem.
Mean is not a robust statistic, so that's why it's often better to use Median instead.
I did. Not impressed.
If 60% people perform better with light theme and 40% dark theme, average is going to be that light theme is superior. This doesn't make dark mode a bad idea.
This is going to appear nitpicky, but the average preference is some average gray, neither dark nor light. The mode is light. That relates back to the fighter jet thing: if you’re going to build a non-adjustable cockpit, build one that fits (within some tolerance) the most number of pilots, not the average on every dimension.
or, better, don't build a non-adjustable cockpit
IE, argmax, not mean
All you're saying is that means aren't informative if distributions are bimodal. Which is both totally true and completely missing the point.
[deleted]
> Wait. So. "Multiple studies show that light mode is better" trumps my actual experience, with my eyeballs, in my office environment?
Of course. All you are measuring is how comfortable you feel, which is irrelevant. What they are measuring is how well people actually perform on tasks while using dark mode. Just because dark mode feels better to you doesn't imply anything about the latter question.
Of course. All you are measuring is how comfortable you feel, which is irrelevant. What they are measuring is how well people actually perform on tasks while using dark mode. Just because dark mode feels better to you doesn't imply anything about the latter question.
Seeing as we're talking about something that relates to eyestrain, I don't think we can discount how the GP feels.
If you don't feel well you likely aren't going to perform well. If your eyes hurt, you are going to want to stop working. If I had to stare at a bright white screen all day, I wouldn't get the task done because it hurts my eyes. Common sense.
Yet another study where it's trying to trump opinion with a study. You can't be wrong if you prefer dark mode/light mode, it's subjective. A study is going to have a real hard time proving one is "better" than the other and we certainly shouldn't take the results on faith.
If you don't feel well you likely aren't going to perform well. If your eyes hurt, you are going to want to stop working. If I had to stare at a bright white screen all day, I wouldn't get the task done because it hurts my eyes. Common sense.
Yet another study where it's trying to trump opinion with a study. You can't be wrong if you prefer dark mode/light mode, it's subjective. A study is going to have a real hard time proving one is "better" than the other and we certainly shouldn't take the results on faith.
Even if dark mode "feels" better that still doesn't imply it actually causes less eye strain. Without data it's possible OP's choice could be driven just by aesthetic preferences and they don't realize it.
I don't see in the study linked in the article where it attributes light mode to more eye strain.
I found where blue light causes eye strain, and it most certainly does, I immediately notice the difference when using a blue light filter on my monitor, but you can have both dark mode and a blue light filter enabled.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020759/
Anecdotally, dark mode causes my eyes and my partner's eyes less strain.
You can notice by how dry and red they get, as well as the headaches, it's not rocket science.
EDIT (reached my post limit)
@shawnz: No, the light physically hurts. It's immediate. It's not because of the aesthetics.
I found where blue light causes eye strain, and it most certainly does, I immediately notice the difference when using a blue light filter on my monitor, but you can have both dark mode and a blue light filter enabled.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020759/
Anecdotally, dark mode causes my eyes and my partner's eyes less strain.
You can notice by how dry and red they get, as well as the headaches, it's not rocket science.
EDIT (reached my post limit)
@shawnz: No, the light physically hurts. It's immediate. It's not because of the aesthetics.
You measured the dryness/redness of your/your partner's eyes after trying dark and light mode? Or is it just that occasionally you or your partner get dry/red eyes and the most memorable association was using light mode beforehand (and it's memorable because you don't like the aesthetics of it)?
I don't think this is "rocket science" but that doesn't mean it is handwavingly obvious either
I don't think this is "rocket science" but that doesn't mean it is handwavingly obvious either
What's a post limit? I've never encountered such a thing.
As much as, probably more than, aesthetic preferences, I would posit that there are many environmental differences which are difficult to completely control for. Screen type and configuration, ambient light level, light source positioning, how often the user look away from the screen (completely away from work, or just onto other media to read from a page for instance), etc.
Having said that I think my preferences are mainly, if not entirely, aesthetic. Dark-on-light terminals feel weird as do light-on-dark documents/spreadsheets - that can't be anything other than just what I'm used to.
Having said that I think my preferences are mainly, if not entirely, aesthetic. Dark-on-light terminals feel weird as do light-on-dark documents/spreadsheets - that can't be anything other than just what I'm used to.
I feel more productive when using dark mode.
Better?
Better?
The parent's point being that feeling productive has roughly no correlation with being productive. You can feel very productive with that https://pippinbarr.github.io/itisasifyouweredoingwork/ game that was recently linked here; but that doesn't mean that you are more productive, and in fact you will be much less-so, because the "work" in the game is meaningless.
Ah yes because these scientific studies using light vs dark mode were able to precisely capture “productivity” output which totally translates to the work that SWE do.
Who said anything about the scientific studies proving anything? My point was that feelings prove just as little. If you're not going to trust other people, then especially don't trust yourself. The output of your feelings is even less evidence-based than the worst possible scientific study.
If you want to truly understand how you specifically react to something, then do science yourself. You don't need to be very rigorous with this, as the goal isn't to prove some huge effect size. The goal is to just get an objective answer to the question of whether you are more productive, rather than a subjective (and therefore very likely wrong) one. Find an objective measure of your own personal performance (anything you care about, doesn't have to be something a boss would care about); maybe find a way to blind yourself to which days you're using the treatment vs. a placebo; write down numbers; and then stick 'em in Excel and see what you get.
I would point at Gwern as a good example of someone who runs self-experiments to determine the objective n=1 effects of different "life hacks" on things they care about. (For Gwern, this is usually brain performance—measured by, among other things, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-back task, data for which can be collected in the form of "playing" a quick round of a computer game.) For example, here's their look into magnesium supplementation: https://www.gwern.net/nootropics/Magnesium
If you want to truly understand how you specifically react to something, then do science yourself. You don't need to be very rigorous with this, as the goal isn't to prove some huge effect size. The goal is to just get an objective answer to the question of whether you are more productive, rather than a subjective (and therefore very likely wrong) one. Find an objective measure of your own personal performance (anything you care about, doesn't have to be something a boss would care about); maybe find a way to blind yourself to which days you're using the treatment vs. a placebo; write down numbers; and then stick 'em in Excel and see what you get.
I would point at Gwern as a good example of someone who runs self-experiments to determine the objective n=1 effects of different "life hacks" on things they care about. (For Gwern, this is usually brain performance—measured by, among other things, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-back task, data for which can be collected in the form of "playing" a quick round of a computer game.) For example, here's their look into magnesium supplementation: https://www.gwern.net/nootropics/Magnesium
Some people feel more productive when they get their auras adjusted or take homeopathic medicine.
The placebo effect is fairly strong. And how productive someone feels vs how productive they actually are when it's measured often varies, of course.
The placebo effect is fairly strong. And how productive someone feels vs how productive they actually are when it's measured often varies, of course.
I am sure if I am whipped or faced with a shock collar I could also be measurably 'productive'. It's pretty evident the reasons why feelings trump productivity then.
I value my feelings in a pleasant work environment a hell of a lot more than productivity metrics.
I value my feelings in a pleasant work environment a hell of a lot more than productivity metrics.
it's not a placebo if it actually affects your productivity
Whatever works for you, that's great. But your anecdotal preferences are hardly worth using as an argument against scientific research in general.
If we all dismissed science to serve our preferences and prejudices, we'd still be in the dark ages. No pun intended.
If we all dismissed science to serve our preferences and prejudices, we'd still be in the dark ages. No pun intended.
sorry if I mislead. I'm criticising Academia, and how science is actually done by humans trying to get tenure. Not Science.
And my point was that my anecdotal preferences are massively more important for me than any scientific study, no matter how rigorous.
And my point was that my anecdotal preferences are massively more important for me than any scientific study, no matter how rigorous.
Wait. So. Multiple studies showing that the earth is round trumps my actual experience, with my eyeballs, outside?
At least read the studies talk about and their setups, otherwise this kind of sentiment is what also gives us all sorts of out-there beliefs.
At least read the studies talk about and their setups, otherwise this kind of sentiment is what also gives us all sorts of out-there beliefs.
You're talking about an objective reality.
This article is talking about a subjective experience.
The earth is a slightly flattened sphere regardless of what you or I choose to believe.
Dark mode is more productive for me in my experience. And showing me concrete proof that other people are more productive in light mode is not going to change that. It's still going to be more productive for me regardless of how many other people find it less productive.
I think this is the core of why we have such out-there beliefs at the moment: everyone believes they live in their own reality, and their subjective opinions trump objective reality. Partly, I think this is due to social sciences attempting to make objective reality out of statistical analysis of subjective opinions. A million people believing the earth is flat doesn't make it so, yet that's exactly what social science says.
This article is talking about a subjective experience.
The earth is a slightly flattened sphere regardless of what you or I choose to believe.
Dark mode is more productive for me in my experience. And showing me concrete proof that other people are more productive in light mode is not going to change that. It's still going to be more productive for me regardless of how many other people find it less productive.
I think this is the core of why we have such out-there beliefs at the moment: everyone believes they live in their own reality, and their subjective opinions trump objective reality. Partly, I think this is due to social sciences attempting to make objective reality out of statistical analysis of subjective opinions. A million people believing the earth is flat doesn't make it so, yet that's exactly what social science says.
Dark mode is a matter of demand, not if it's good for you. The real questions scientists should be asking why people want it in the first place. Other than that, I agree with your sentiment.
People wanted dark modes of websites since the dawn of the web itself. It's just that it was too inconvenient for companies to maintain at least two designs at the same time so they happily turned a blind eye to the requests.
By the same token, I hate dark mode and prefer light mode. My experience resonates with this article, but it's not because of this article.
I completely agree :)
They address this in the post:
>Many people perceive light mode as the cause of eye strain. But blue light, among other things, is actually the cause of it most of the time. This is covered in more detail by Vice, where they say:
>>A 2018 study published in BMJ Open Ophthalmology notes that blue light could be a factor in eye tiredness, but cites dry eyes from not blinking for long periods as a more serious cause of eye strain, as well as too-small fonts, and conditions like uncorrected astigmatism.
It may be that when you use dark mode, because of the lack of blue light you feel better. But perhaps you can test this by installing something like [Flux](https://justgetflux.com/) to see if that also helps.
>Many people perceive light mode as the cause of eye strain. But blue light, among other things, is actually the cause of it most of the time. This is covered in more detail by Vice, where they say:
>>A 2018 study published in BMJ Open Ophthalmology notes that blue light could be a factor in eye tiredness, but cites dry eyes from not blinking for long periods as a more serious cause of eye strain, as well as too-small fonts, and conditions like uncorrected astigmatism.
It may be that when you use dark mode, because of the lack of blue light you feel better. But perhaps you can test this by installing something like [Flux](https://justgetflux.com/) to see if that also helps.
It's quite absurd how the discussion around this post seems to have turned into a fight on dogmatism. I guess many presumed "scientists" are just quite hurt by the blunt statement "I don't have that much faith in scientists", no matter how valid your points might be.
If one can't even express doubt about some academic papers (note how different it is to expressing doubt on the whole idea of "science"), which exist in the millions, then things are pretty messed up. A lot of commenters are either incapable of some basic reading comprehension or are deliberately misinterpreting it.
If one can't even express doubt about some academic papers (note how different it is to expressing doubt on the whole idea of "science"), which exist in the millions, then things are pretty messed up. A lot of commenters are either incapable of some basic reading comprehension or are deliberately misinterpreting it.
> Wait. So. "Multiple studies show that light mode is better" trumps my actual experience, with my eyeballs, in my office environment?
This is how I always feel about design/UI/UX/etc research: They remove functionality and make things more clumsy and then claim it's Good For Me. They unironically cite to design "fundamentals" without consideration for culture or even personal preference [0] as if any such things could exist. Is it any coincidence the most designed websites are a narrow strip of gray-on-gray text lost in a site which won't even load without heavyweight JS?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23080727
This is how I always feel about design/UI/UX/etc research: They remove functionality and make things more clumsy and then claim it's Good For Me. They unironically cite to design "fundamentals" without consideration for culture or even personal preference [0] as if any such things could exist. Is it any coincidence the most designed websites are a narrow strip of gray-on-gray text lost in a site which won't even load without heavyweight JS?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23080727
> I don't have that much faith in scientists
Suppose your mechanic mess up your car. Suppose this happen again with a second mechanic, and maybe even a third. Is that enough to justify the conclusion that “mechanics are bad”? I don’t think so. Science is the same.
Suppose your mechanic mess up your car. Suppose this happen again with a second mechanic, and maybe even a third. Is that enough to justify the conclusion that “mechanics are bad”? I don’t think so. Science is the same.
> Is that enough to justify the conclusion that “mechanics are bad”?
Maybe not, but it's certainly enough to justify the conclusion that "mechanics should not be blindly trusted". Same with scientists. Doing good science is hard, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if most studies are flawed.
Also, there's a reason the concept of independent verification is so important in science. Even if the scientists doing a study are trying their best to do good science, it's incredibly easy to make a mistake. A healthy dose of skepticism is very much warranted.
Maybe not, but it's certainly enough to justify the conclusion that "mechanics should not be blindly trusted". Same with scientists. Doing good science is hard, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if most studies are flawed.
Also, there's a reason the concept of independent verification is so important in science. Even if the scientists doing a study are trying their best to do good science, it's incredibly easy to make a mistake. A healthy dose of skepticism is very much warranted.
You shouldn’t blindly believe anything, but science, faulty as it is, does entail a higher degree of credibility than, say, anecdotal evidence.
Perhaps, but that's not a very high bar. If you personally experience something that disagrees with what a research paper says, I don't think it's reasonable to just assume you must have been mistaken.
That doesn't mean I think you should believe your senses either. It means it's worth looking into it further (if you care, at least).
That doesn't mean I think you should believe your senses either. It means it's worth looking into it further (if you care, at least).
I'm too tired and bored to source it, but, there are also "multiple studies," as the author puts it, stating that dark mode is better.
If you like sitting in a bright room, you'll prefer light mode; dark room, dark mode.
If you like sitting in a bright room, you'll prefer light mode; dark room, dark mode.
> I don't have that much faith in scientists.
About that, it's surprising that there's so much papercuts in the scientific field these days. p-hacking, lack of peer reviews, journal gatekeeping, also some ex-engineer turned pseudo cosmologist [0] said that there's too much technological 'papers' and not enough fundamentals, which dillute the quality of thinking and the seal of quality attached to the scientific method
(the man is a controversial figure, most people would consider him a nutsack, but I can agree with the fact that research has shifted in meaning compared to early 20th century)
About that, it's surprising that there's so much papercuts in the scientific field these days. p-hacking, lack of peer reviews, journal gatekeeping, also some ex-engineer turned pseudo cosmologist [0] said that there's too much technological 'papers' and not enough fundamentals, which dillute the quality of thinking and the seal of quality attached to the scientific method
(the man is a controversial figure, most people would consider him a nutsack, but I can agree with the fact that research has shifted in meaning compared to early 20th century)
Skimming the website and referenced paper-website (didn’t make it to a particular paper) I saw only statements of results, and none of methodology. Is the p-hacking claim “a general feeling” or can you pull it from something concrete here?
By the way, in case it is “just” a feeling, I’ll say up front I share the feeling too. I think worth considering for every empirical study.
By the way, in case it is “just” a feeling, I’ll say up front I share the feeling too. I think worth considering for every empirical study.
Humans as a rule tend to do multiple things thinking that what they’re doing is the best for them and then turns out it’s not.
Although for me it’s a ridiculous thing to even bother trying to measure. The problem isn’t whether it’s slightly better to look at a dark or light background but rather that we spend so much time staring at screens that it becomes a problem.
Although for me it’s a ridiculous thing to even bother trying to measure. The problem isn’t whether it’s slightly better to look at a dark or light background but rather that we spend so much time staring at screens that it becomes a problem.
>> I don't have that much faith in scientists.
well I guess you have faith or dogma to fall back on, then. Safe travels!
well I guess you have faith or dogma to fall back on, then. Safe travels!
Note they didn't say they don't have faith in science, but that they don't have faith in scientists. There's an important distinction there.
thank you. Scientists are human, and as flawed as the rest of us. The scientific method doesn't need my faith, but it has it anyway.
I can't handle dark mode. If letters are bright they burn into my eyes and follow my gaze. I use black on solarized background color for years after I dropped the white on black and it feels much better.
> "fighter jet seat problem"
sorry, but is there a link to this? A quick Google showed only issues with the F-35's ejection system.
sorry, but is there a link to this? A quick Google showed only issues with the F-35's ejection system.
I think I can throw some light on this one. (Sorry, no references. I read about this, but can’tremember where.) Some time years ago, the US air force tried to find out, using statistics, how to design cockpits to fit most pilots. So they did multiple measurements on many people; upper and lower arm lengths, ditto for legs, back lengths, etc. Then they took the average of each measurement and designed cockpits to fit pilots of average size, allowing for some variation, of course. As it turned out, almost every pilot was much more than a standard deviation from the mean in some dimension, so these cockpits actually fit practically no one – resulting in a too high rate of (near) accidents. I am not sure how they overcame the problem, but IIRC, part of the solution involved designing for the exact measurements not being quite so critical.
>…I don't have that much faith in scientists
And that’s how we got to 2020 with anti-vaccine and flat-earth.
It’s science. Axioms and data. You don’t need faith.
Got better data? Cause “I like it better” isn’t.
And that’s how we got to 2020 with anti-vaccine and flat-earth.
It’s science. Axioms and data. You don’t need faith.
Got better data? Cause “I like it better” isn’t.
Not having faith in science isn't a bit incompatible with working with computers?
While I believe you, you may also see how your argument is similar to the argument "non-proven pseudoscience medical treatments cured my disease, therefore they work".
I would be very interested in a study that looks at how much of the dark/light color scheme preference is just due to habit and esthetics.
I would be very interested in a study that looks at how much of the dark/light color scheme preference is just due to habit and esthetics.
it's gonna be hard to run a double-blind experiment on that one
"Reading and Myopia: Contrast Polarity Matters" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x :
"reading white text from a black screen or tablet may be a way to inhibit myopia, while conventional black text on white background may stimulate myopia"
"reading white text from a black screen or tablet may be a way to inhibit myopia, while conventional black text on white background may stimulate myopia"
"Is Dark Mode Such a Good Idea?"
Yes, it is. One thing is reading a newspaper in which text amounts to a good percentage of the available area, and the rest reflects ambient light, and a whole different thing is a screen with some text in the middle and the free area emitting white light right to my eyes, de facto saturating them.
I would never read a white text on black paper newspaper, neither in the dark nor in the light, but I surely find dark mode on screens a billion times more readable than traditional light modes. Useable e-paper displays might change that one day, but the technology is still in its infancy.
Yes, it is. One thing is reading a newspaper in which text amounts to a good percentage of the available area, and the rest reflects ambient light, and a whole different thing is a screen with some text in the middle and the free area emitting white light right to my eyes, de facto saturating them.
I would never read a white text on black paper newspaper, neither in the dark nor in the light, but I surely find dark mode on screens a billion times more readable than traditional light modes. Useable e-paper displays might change that one day, but the technology is still in its infancy.
Emitted light isn't a problem per se, because reflected photons aren't somehow radically different from emitted ones. Color and brightness profile is the problem. On a display, you have to have high contrast and brightness for images (that have lots of darker areas), so the system interface is in turn tuned for this high brightness—and then you have to deal with bright white under text.
Note how text on e-ink is excellently readable but photos look like crap—since they aren't carefully selected and adjusted for the medium like in print.
On screens, black text on a-bit-gray-with-a-hint-of-red is better, like here on HN, though still not the same. I wonder if it's possible to get close to paper/e-ink colors on an LCD/OLED screen, or the backlight's color profile is too different (apparently LEDs emit narrow bands of wavelengths, which might be harsher for the eyes—while sunlight and incandescent lights have all or most of the visible spectrum).
Note how text on e-ink is excellently readable but photos look like crap—since they aren't carefully selected and adjusted for the medium like in print.
On screens, black text on a-bit-gray-with-a-hint-of-red is better, like here on HN, though still not the same. I wonder if it's possible to get close to paper/e-ink colors on an LCD/OLED screen, or the backlight's color profile is too different (apparently LEDs emit narrow bands of wavelengths, which might be harsher for the eyes—while sunlight and incandescent lights have all or most of the visible spectrum).
These are good points but miss an essential part of the story: reflected light almost by definition matches the brightness of the surrounding environment, meaning that the periphery is roughly the same brightness and white balance as the reading medium.
If I look at my laptop on full brightness in a nearly pitch black room, it is far less comfortable to read than if I turned on a lamp.
So there are two solutions to this. Turn on a lamp if you're using a screen at night time, and lower your brightness to have roughly the same level as the ambient light.
Or, use night mode if you don't want to turn a lamp on.
If I'm doing something like programming, I prefer the former. If I'm just in bed and feeling lazy and want to read twitter, I go for the latter so I don't have to turn a lamp on.
If I look at my laptop on full brightness in a nearly pitch black room, it is far less comfortable to read than if I turned on a lamp.
So there are two solutions to this. Turn on a lamp if you're using a screen at night time, and lower your brightness to have roughly the same level as the ambient light.
Or, use night mode if you don't want to turn a lamp on.
If I'm doing something like programming, I prefer the former. If I'm just in bed and feeling lazy and want to read twitter, I go for the latter so I don't have to turn a lamp on.
Yes, it probably correlates with ambient light. I like light mode but I also like to open the blinds, turn on the lamps etc, as opposed to the stereotypical dark basement hacking with a hoodie on.
Dark mode is also very often buggy, clumsy, the color schemes for syntax highlight are subjectively less pleasing, it feels gloomier, less cheerful, I see more distracting dust on the screen, smudges etc. Yeah I could also clean it more etc. The point is there can be multiple equilibra, one develops habits and preferences. It's not an absolute thing.
Dark mode is also very often buggy, clumsy, the color schemes for syntax highlight are subjectively less pleasing, it feels gloomier, less cheerful, I see more distracting dust on the screen, smudges etc. Yeah I could also clean it more etc. The point is there can be multiple equilibra, one develops habits and preferences. It's not an absolute thing.
I use gruvbox, light when there is a lot of light around (e.g. im outside) and dark mode when im indoors.
There is more to this than all the biological talk too.
I use it as a context switch and prefer to review code in light mode, while i prefer to write code in dark mode.
Either it helps with the context switching or reading is just easier in light mode, while writing is easier in dark mode because its easier focus in on what im writing.
I think given a lot of people prefer dark mode for various things, people should assume they lack all the information for making bold claims based on biological studies alone.
There is more to this than all the biological talk too.
I use it as a context switch and prefer to review code in light mode, while i prefer to write code in dark mode.
Either it helps with the context switching or reading is just easier in light mode, while writing is easier in dark mode because its easier focus in on what im writing.
I think given a lot of people prefer dark mode for various things, people should assume they lack all the information for making bold claims based on biological studies alone.
Also I'm becoming more and more convinced that we humans are extremely adaptive. With regards to major and minor things as well. People can adapt to eating 6 small meals a day and then swear they would not be able to concentrate after skipping one of them. Others eat one meal a day, exercise fasted and skip entire days of food and report very good mental clarity and love it. Some only eat vegan and with a few supplements live very well. Other eat purely carnivore (exclusively salt, meat and water) and report good results after an initial phase of toilet hell.
Some people never exercise and live to 90 years. Some people are night owls and do their best work at 3 AM and have no concept of a schedule but get stuff done brilliantly. Others have to dogmatically stick to a schedule and a rigid morning and evening routine and swear by waking up at 4:30.
Partially it's their genetics but a huge part is habits and adaptation. Humans can function in the polar circle, in the jungle, on the savanna, in urban hell, in the suburbs, on farms etc.
Any study that wants to test the difference in benefits of different habits would need to allow for the adaptations to take place, the adjacent habits to adjust to the new style etc. You cannot just take one thing in isolation. Maybe I like light color schemes because I do most of my work in the daylight and sleep at night. There can be tons of confounders and doing months long randomized studies is rare.
Some people never exercise and live to 90 years. Some people are night owls and do their best work at 3 AM and have no concept of a schedule but get stuff done brilliantly. Others have to dogmatically stick to a schedule and a rigid morning and evening routine and swear by waking up at 4:30.
Partially it's their genetics but a huge part is habits and adaptation. Humans can function in the polar circle, in the jungle, on the savanna, in urban hell, in the suburbs, on farms etc.
Any study that wants to test the difference in benefits of different habits would need to allow for the adaptations to take place, the adjacent habits to adjust to the new style etc. You cannot just take one thing in isolation. Maybe I like light color schemes because I do most of my work in the daylight and sleep at night. There can be tons of confounders and doing months long randomized studies is rare.
> the color schemes for syntax highlight are subjectively less pleasing
I fixed that particular issue by making my own color schemes.
I am probably the only user, but this is OK.
I fixed that particular issue by making my own color schemes.
I am probably the only user, but this is OK.
A simple method that I use to demonstrate that: point a phone's camera at the screen+surroundings.
Then it's easy to adjust the screen's brightness/turn on lights until the screen is not overexposed/the environment is not underexposed.
Then it's easy to adjust the screen's brightness/turn on lights until the screen is not overexposed/the environment is not underexposed.
As a photographer, as well as a Technical PM who spends all their time on a computer, and a non-zero amount of time optimizing my setup, and someone who has taken photos of computers and done exactly this to get the exposure correct: I don't know why I didn't think of doing this on a daily basis!
Every time I bought a new computer monitor in the last 10+ years, I had to turn the brightness way down in order to use it comfortably. I've gone as far down as 8% with some of the brightest monitors, and even with more reasonable ones I rarely go above 40%. Maybe these things are designed to be readable outdoors in direct sunlight. They're absolutely not suitable for indoors use, especially at night.
> I go for the latter so I don't have to turn a lamp on
Yes. My use case is reading ebooks at night on a Kindle app in Dark Mode so that I don't disturb my partner who is trying to sleep.
Yes. My use case is reading ebooks at night on a Kindle app in Dark Mode so that I don't disturb my partner who is trying to sleep.
The other emitted-photon difference is flashing. If your monitor uses pulse width modulation to dim, any brightness under 100% is going to flash high-frequency lights at your eyes.
Supposedly if this is done fast enough it's not unhealthy, but it's a case of "no solid evidence it's bad for you" plus anecdotal links to headaches. I have personally had drastically fewer screen headaches since leaving my hardware brightness on 100% and lowering brightness via the driver.
I'm a believer in the spectrum thing, too. I find halogens way easier on the eyes than ultra-power-saving diodes.
Supposedly if this is done fast enough it's not unhealthy, but it's a case of "no solid evidence it's bad for you" plus anecdotal links to headaches. I have personally had drastically fewer screen headaches since leaving my hardware brightness on 100% and lowering brightness via the driver.
I'm a believer in the spectrum thing, too. I find halogens way easier on the eyes than ultra-power-saving diodes.
The issue with emitted light is that it can be too bright and/or be at a vastly higher brightness than ambient.
When you read a book or a newspaper the brightness naturally fits with ambient light. It's hard on the eyes to read a book on the beach because of the brightness (same effect as a snowy landscape under the sun).
Dark modes usually lower the brightness overall and reduce the contrast with ambient light as well.
When you read a book or a newspaper the brightness naturally fits with ambient light. It's hard on the eyes to read a book on the beach because of the brightness (same effect as a snowy landscape under the sun).
Dark modes usually lower the brightness overall and reduce the contrast with ambient light as well.
How photos look on e-ink depends on how the SW is implemented. If dithering is used, then yes, random photos look like crap. But it can also use shades of gray (8, or 16), which is slower to update, but looks much better.
I am old enough to have written programs when "dark mode" was the default (black background and green or amber text, 40 columns, 80 columns if you were lucky), and I can tell you that light mode is much easier on my eyes.
Black text (real black, not this fancy grey web designers seem to prefer) and white background on a properly adjusted monitor where the white doesn't blind you is my go-to since monitors became good enough to make it possible.
YMMV, of course.
Black text (real black, not this fancy grey web designers seem to prefer) and white background on a properly adjusted monitor where the white doesn't blind you is my go-to since monitors became good enough to make it possible.
YMMV, of course.
By contrast, I am old enough to have written programs when "dark mode" was the default (black background and green or amber text, 40 columns, 80 columns if you were lucky), and I can tell you that dark mode is much easier on my eyes.
Convinced?
// Was and remain in the amber camp.
/// See also: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/
”... we strongly recommend that designers allow users to switch to dark mode if they want to — for three reasons: (1) there may be long-term effects associated with light mode; (2) some people with visual impairments will do better with dark mode; and (3) some users simply like dark mode better.”
And from a StackOverflow discussion:
Visual fatigue research: Unfortunately I could not find very much research which measured computer screen visual fatigue in comparison to black-on-white text as opposed to white-on-black. The only piece I could find was a short reference in "Reading text from computer screens" by Mills and Weldon (1987) from the journal ACM Computing Surveys. Section 4.1 of that paper, titled "polarity", goes over important works at the time, including this piece:
”In contrast to the results in these studies, Cushman [1986] found that subjects who read continuous text from positive contrast (light character) VDTs reported less visual fatigue (as measured on a subjective rating scale) than those who read from negative contrast (dark character) VDTs.”
Convinced?
// Was and remain in the amber camp.
/// See also: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/
”... we strongly recommend that designers allow users to switch to dark mode if they want to — for three reasons: (1) there may be long-term effects associated with light mode; (2) some people with visual impairments will do better with dark mode; and (3) some users simply like dark mode better.”
And from a StackOverflow discussion:
Visual fatigue research: Unfortunately I could not find very much research which measured computer screen visual fatigue in comparison to black-on-white text as opposed to white-on-black. The only piece I could find was a short reference in "Reading text from computer screens" by Mills and Weldon (1987) from the journal ACM Computing Surveys. Section 4.1 of that paper, titled "polarity", goes over important works at the time, including this piece:
”In contrast to the results in these studies, Cushman [1986] found that subjects who read continuous text from positive contrast (light character) VDTs reported less visual fatigue (as measured on a subjective rating scale) than those who read from negative contrast (dark character) VDTs.”
I mean, parent post said "easier on my eyes" and "ymmv". It doesn't take much convincing for me to believe that light mode is easier on parents eyes and dark mode is easier on your eyes. I believe you.
It depends on the amount of light. Try reading a book outside on a clear summer day when the sun is at its zenith. Your eyes won't even stand it. It doesn't matter that the light comes from a direct source or from reflection. We can easily imagine more extreme experiments using mirrors and spotlights.
I find it weird that people feel the need to defend dark mode preferences based on arguments about why they think it's "objectively" better.
Does it matter? I mean, do you have to have a reason for preferring dark mode? I like dark mode because it looks better (to me).
I also prefer multi-color boxer shorts over white briefs. Does there have to be a justification? No. It's an aesthetic choice just like dark-mode, font-size, and color-temperature.
Does it matter? I mean, do you have to have a reason for preferring dark mode? I like dark mode because it looks better (to me).
I also prefer multi-color boxer shorts over white briefs. Does there have to be a justification? No. It's an aesthetic choice just like dark-mode, font-size, and color-temperature.
Could you explain what you consider to be the difference between emitted and reflected light? I'm asking because in the models of global illumination that also handle emissive materials that I've worked with, there's literally no difference between whether a photon was emitted by a surface, or came from somewhere else and bounced off the surface. So I'm trying to understand if there's some fundamental property here (e.g. like polarization) or LED color reproduction at play, that CG models don't capture. Because as soon as you have a ray of light with a certain intensity and mix of wavelengths, it really shouldn't matter how it was produced, so I'm trying to understand the quantitative difference in what is produced.
One of the more obvious differences is that paper is very close to a Lambertian reflector while LCD pixels are more directed. Hence the LCD viewing angle problem, though that gap is closing.
Apart from that, I think it mostly comes down to the fact that an LCD pixel doesn't actually change it's reflected colour when it starts emitting light of a different colour. This means that incident light falling upon the pixel and being reflected will necessarily become noise -- it won't contribute to the image. For instance, if the colour of the LCD surface is some kind of grey and the LCD is emitting green, the resulting colour will be
On the other hand, if you had a green coloured paper, then there is no emitted component so it becomes just
Apart from that, I think it mostly comes down to the fact that an LCD pixel doesn't actually change it's reflected colour when it starts emitting light of a different colour. This means that incident light falling upon the pixel and being reflected will necessarily become noise -- it won't contribute to the image. For instance, if the colour of the LCD surface is some kind of grey and the LCD is emitting green, the resulting colour will be
incident * r_reflected + emitted
On the other hand, if you had a green coloured paper, then there is no emitted component so it becomes just
incident * r_reflected
Ok, that makes sense. But does any of that have any bearing on eye strain? Because it sounds mainly like a color reproduction issue, which seems pretty orthogonal to the whole 'black text on white background vs white text on black background' debate.
Emissive displays don't react to incident light in the same way as paper, even if they try. And they've been trying for a long time -- my grandmother had a TV from the 1970s with an ambient light sensor that would match the ambient color temperature.
They are always set too bright. I always wondered why are they simply not adaptive: you turn it on, and then set the brightness that you find comfortable. Then it adjust the brightness as ambient light changes by extrapolating from your chosen point.
Better systems could let you calibrate multiple points, so they would interpolate instead if extrapolate, but even a single point calibration would be amazing.
FWIW, I've tried dark mode and have to enlarge font sizes to read stuff compared to using very dim setting on my screens and light mode. I felt like I was in minority so didn't bother with exploring further.
But, I did realise and investigate blinking issue (I've got dry eyes, worse due to contacts and lots of screen time). I even have a few experiments in mind (like the typing break apps of old, I want my computer to trigger my blinking without adverse effects; whether it's by bluring content for a couple ms at a time to trigger eye refocus and blink, or whether it's something else, I still need to test it).
Better systems could let you calibrate multiple points, so they would interpolate instead if extrapolate, but even a single point calibration would be amazing.
FWIW, I've tried dark mode and have to enlarge font sizes to read stuff compared to using very dim setting on my screens and light mode. I felt like I was in minority so didn't bother with exploring further.
But, I did realise and investigate blinking issue (I've got dry eyes, worse due to contacts and lots of screen time). I even have a few experiments in mind (like the typing break apps of old, I want my computer to trigger my blinking without adverse effects; whether it's by bluring content for a couple ms at a time to trigger eye refocus and blink, or whether it's something else, I still need to test it).
"FWIW, I've tried dark mode and have to enlarge font sizes to read stuff compared to using very dim setting on my screens and light mode."
I think the article mentions this indirectly, but then attributes it. Your pupils are going to adjust to the amount of light entering them a lot (most?). This means like a camera, a smaller hole will be less sensitive to focal problems.
So, unless you perfectly compensated for the amount of light coming from your display its likely the brighter backgrounds were dumping more light, reducing your pupils and making things clearer.
I think the article mentions this indirectly, but then attributes it. Your pupils are going to adjust to the amount of light entering them a lot (most?). This means like a camera, a smaller hole will be less sensitive to focal problems.
So, unless you perfectly compensated for the amount of light coming from your display its likely the brighter backgrounds were dumping more light, reducing your pupils and making things clearer.
They're getting better:
https://www.samsung.com/us/televisions-home-theater/tvs/the-...
The first time I saw one of these in the flesh, it was striking. I'd be surprised if this kind of context-awareness in screens didn't work its way into most devices within the next decade.
The first time I saw one of these in the flesh, it was striking. I'd be surprised if this kind of context-awareness in screens didn't work its way into most devices within the next decade.
>Yes, it is. One thing is reading a newspaper in which text amounts to a good percentage of the available area, and the rest reflects ambient light, and a whole different thing is a screen with some text in the middle and the free area emitting white light right to my eyes, de facto saturating them.
Photos are still photons. You can adjust the brightness of the monitor to be the same of a newspaper that reflects your favorite light intensity.
Photos are still photons. You can adjust the brightness of the monitor to be the same of a newspaper that reflects your favorite light intensity.
Every night? Progressively as it gets darker? Manually? Plus, I'd need to re-adjust the contrast as well.
I'm sure there's software that does that, but Dark mode seems like the easy-no-extra-work solution to this problem.
I'm sure there's software that does that, but Dark mode seems like the easy-no-extra-work solution to this problem.
Apple's computers already do that, they have a sensor and adjust the backlight, some can even adjust the color tone to match the ambient light. I know, sounds like the future, but they had it for a while.
But, you often can’t turn down the brightness that much. And anyway the contrast of monitors is many times worse than the contrast of a printed newspaper. Photons are photons, but a screen sends very different pattern of photons to your eyes than a newspaper.
Is this true? Printed newspaper is the crappiest kind of paper as far as contrast goes. Anyway OLED monitors have good contrast and their brightness can be arbitrarily adjusted.
Then you need to get a better monitor. Some of the cheaper ones out there are insanely bright just so they can put larger numbers in the brightness and contrast columns. Good panels have decent contrast even when you turn down the brightness.
It is likely that you have your display brightness too high. Indoors, in light mode, most modern screens need to be set at 50% or lower brightness.
Hold a piece of paper next to the display. If a white background on the display (e.g. open Notepad) is noticeably brighter than the paper, dial down the display's brightness.
At work my brightness dial is down to 0. At home it's at 16.
It looks wrong at first, but you'll get used to it within a day or so. Colleagues coming to your desk will remark upon it.
At work my brightness dial is down to 0. At home it's at 16.
It looks wrong at first, but you'll get used to it within a day or so. Colleagues coming to your desk will remark upon it.
I completely agree. Modern screens are made to stay readable in direct sunlight. The maximum brightness is really high. The screen I'm currently looking at is at 6/100 and I could probably turn it down a bit more.
I would love to have a good e-paper laptop for coding, reading and communicating. I actually consider today (and even 5-yr-old) e-paper displays perfectly usable for all real tasks except watching video and playing realtime games. Compilers and editors (and web pages) should change to avoid unnecessary output and require less screen updates though (this would actually be great anyway - whatever kind of screen I have I prefer unnecessary presentation dynamicity to be avoided).
I've seen a couple who hacked together setups using Android e-ink tablets, but I'd love to see someone make (and sell) a product with a little more polish.
The main barrier is that almost all modern GUIs depend on high refresh rates, but it's not hard to imagine a GUI designed from the ground-up for ePaper. Little-to-no transitions, pagination instead of scrolling, maybe a customized version of Firefox with a prominent Readability toggle, etc
The main barrier is that almost all modern GUIs depend on high refresh rates, but it's not hard to imagine a GUI designed from the ground-up for ePaper. Little-to-no transitions, pagination instead of scrolling, maybe a customized version of Firefox with a prominent Readability toggle, etc
If you two are serious about this, you'll defintely want to check out Technology Connections' series on e-ink:
(quick intro): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytpRnRke6I0
(starting the breakdown): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NfX0vlCa4k
He talks about that exact concept and moves on to do real-world testing and setup of a very specific tablet usable as an external display.
It's exactly as you say: Hacky and unpolished. But I found it extremely informative.
(quick intro): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytpRnRke6I0
(starting the breakdown): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NfX0vlCa4k
He talks about that exact concept and moves on to do real-world testing and setup of a very specific tablet usable as an external display.
It's exactly as you say: Hacky and unpolished. But I found it extremely informative.
I'm aware of some options:
The Boox Max 3 e-ink tablet can be used as an external monitor (HDMI connection) with good refresh rate.
Dasung Paperlike 3 is a dedicated e-ink external monitor that can actually play video with really good refresh rate.
Waveshare also makes e-ink external monitor, not as good as the Paperlike but coming at half the price.
The Boox Max 3 e-ink tablet can be used as an external monitor (HDMI connection) with good refresh rate.
Dasung Paperlike 3 is a dedicated e-ink external monitor that can actually play video with really good refresh rate.
Waveshare also makes e-ink external monitor, not as good as the Paperlike but coming at half the price.
I wouldn't be surprised if the e-ink display market exploded in the near future with Dasung getting the refresh rate into usable territory and the availability of color e-ink. I been trying a couple of things to help with eye fatigue and the following helped me quite a bit: setting up "Breaks For Eyes" for osx to remind about taking breaks, switching to the light "Brutalist" theme for emacs and moving most of my longform reading to a Boox e-ink tablet, though I wish the Android Pocket app would support pagination and there was a good Reader-mode-by-default browser.
> getting the refresh rate into usable territory
Doesn't unnecessary refresh deterioration the e-ink display and diminish its power efficiency? I really see no reason for the display to refresh until the actual information you need to view changes. What do you need a higher refresh rate for? Wobbly window effects, smooth scrolling, verbose build output and intense action games?
I really don't want the screens to adapt by increasing refresh rates, I want the software to adapt by ditching scrolling for pagination, giving up unnecessary visual effects, decreasing verbosity (only displaying what I really want to see) etc.
Doesn't unnecessary refresh deterioration the e-ink display and diminish its power efficiency? I really see no reason for the display to refresh until the actual information you need to view changes. What do you need a higher refresh rate for? Wobbly window effects, smooth scrolling, verbose build output and intense action games?
I really don't want the screens to adapt by increasing refresh rates, I want the software to adapt by ditching scrolling for pagination, giving up unnecessary visual effects, decreasing verbosity (only displaying what I really want to see) etc.
You're right, I really meant latency here.
My old Kobo Aura e-reader (gen 2 I think, amazing device) had a browser built-in. On one occasion I had to use it to log in and retrieve flight details when my phone battery died. That was probably my most frustrating tech experience of the last five years. Partly, the browser app was not great, but also because every single action required multiple 1-second long refreshes of the screen. Type a letter? Refresh. Scroll? Multiple refresh. Zoom? Multiple refresh. Select a button? Multiple refresh. Press the button? ... you get the picture.
As you say, every app and website would need to be completely redesigned to work with e-paper. I don't see that happening, but even then typing or editing text with a long delay is very annoying, as anyone who has used SSH over a slow connection will tell you.
As you say, every app and website would need to be completely redesigned to work with e-paper. I don't see that happening, but even then typing or editing text with a long delay is very annoying, as anyone who has used SSH over a slow connection will tell you.
> Type a letter? Refresh. Scroll? Multiple refresh. Zoom? Multiple refresh. Select a button? Multiple refresh. Press the button?
That's because the damn smooth visual effects. Most of the transitions between these states are animated in a multiple number of frames. There would be no problem if it switched straight to the target state. Also scrolling should be replaced with pagination and zooming should ask you to enter the percentage rather than let you zoom visually.
> As you say, every app and website would need to be completely redesigned to work with e-paper.
I really wish every app to be designed that way anyway - that would mean less of pointless fun but much more of eye and brain comfort.
I don't know if there is a scientific paper on this but it feels like moving stuff depletes brain resources much faster, causing more stress and attention deficit.
The only thing I want displayed is what really needs to be displayed (exactly what I have came to view + some useful auxiliary information perhaps). The only thing to update at any given moment of time is what really needs to be updated.
As for smooth transition visual effects I have always hated them altogether and always disabled them on every PC I used.
That's because the damn smooth visual effects. Most of the transitions between these states are animated in a multiple number of frames. There would be no problem if it switched straight to the target state. Also scrolling should be replaced with pagination and zooming should ask you to enter the percentage rather than let you zoom visually.
> As you say, every app and website would need to be completely redesigned to work with e-paper.
I really wish every app to be designed that way anyway - that would mean less of pointless fun but much more of eye and brain comfort.
I don't know if there is a scientific paper on this but it feels like moving stuff depletes brain resources much faster, causing more stress and attention deficit.
The only thing I want displayed is what really needs to be displayed (exactly what I have came to view + some useful auxiliary information perhaps). The only thing to update at any given moment of time is what really needs to be updated.
As for smooth transition visual effects I have always hated them altogether and always disabled them on every PC I used.
> As you say, every app and website would need to be completely redesigned to work with e-paper.
Are you sure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqkWga0PFo
Are you sure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqkWga0PFo
I recently got a Likebook Mars and since it's got Android 6 and Google Play store, it works perfectly out of the box for my purposes (emails, reading, writing). Not gonna replace your computer any time soon, but great for focusing on one simple task, would highly recommend:
https://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/boyue-likebo....
https://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/boyue-likebo....
I'm in the market for an external display to be used for text/coding only, in portrait mode. An e-paper display would be ideal. A quick search just seems to show that these displays are only sold as modules and no one is selling a finished product unless you go for something completely over-featured (e.g. wacom tablet). Do you have any recommendations?
I use termux and boox 3 for this and it works amazingly well. The main reason why I haven't switched 100% to not using a laptop is that I haven't found a portable keyboard to go with it yet.
ed(1) is plenty quiet already.
https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html
https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html
I totally disagree.
the s/n on white background is very high.
the s/n on a black background is terrible (reflection easily overwhelm the signal)
young eyes don't care
older eyes, with less ability to reshape the lens of the eye need extra light to close down the pupil and put more stuff in focus without eyestrain.
the s/n on white background is very high.
the s/n on a black background is terrible (reflection easily overwhelm the signal)
young eyes don't care
older eyes, with less ability to reshape the lens of the eye need extra light to close down the pupil and put more stuff in focus without eyestrain.
In some sense your eye might not care, but it really do seem that either eye or the brain cares. Not necessarily about the background or foreground itself unless the background is really bright, but something more like the relative contrast of our entire field of vision, and interacting with the size of elements.
A good black and white (true grayscale CRT display) in a properly lit room can be eminently readable and cause very little eye strain. However, as soon as you start to use color and images, and/or the room isn't properly lit, it seems the level of contrast necessary for make colour look right - especially in images - also tend to make white backgrounds far too bright. According to my experience the effect get worse the bigger the screen is.
It does seem to be an issue, but not really a problem with the text versus background color, rather because we handle gamut/contrast/color the same way in both UI elements, on screen text, and images. While this might partially be down to the last decades dominance of LCD screens with rather poor color rendering that nobody has cared to fix it, the color profiles of UI, text, and images should really be adjusted separately.
So why does dark background seemingly alleviate this issue for some fraction of people? I don't know for sure, it could be the brain "averages" light over a small area, when determining some global brightness/contrast measure, thus making might on black seem less contrasty while still allowing use of brightness/color range that also works reasonably well for images?
I notice my daughter brought up with screens around seem to care less, but that could be a coincidence.
A good black and white (true grayscale CRT display) in a properly lit room can be eminently readable and cause very little eye strain. However, as soon as you start to use color and images, and/or the room isn't properly lit, it seems the level of contrast necessary for make colour look right - especially in images - also tend to make white backgrounds far too bright. According to my experience the effect get worse the bigger the screen is.
It does seem to be an issue, but not really a problem with the text versus background color, rather because we handle gamut/contrast/color the same way in both UI elements, on screen text, and images. While this might partially be down to the last decades dominance of LCD screens with rather poor color rendering that nobody has cared to fix it, the color profiles of UI, text, and images should really be adjusted separately.
So why does dark background seemingly alleviate this issue for some fraction of people? I don't know for sure, it could be the brain "averages" light over a small area, when determining some global brightness/contrast measure, thus making might on black seem less contrasty while still allowing use of brightness/color range that also works reasonably well for images?
I notice my daughter brought up with screens around seem to care less, but that could be a coincidence.
This is the biggest problem with the using dark mode on reflective screens. (Another one is that web sites force their own themes which are usually light, so switching between windows becomes painful.)
> Yes, it is.
Well, it's very dogmatic.
Sure, for you it may be better, and if you "would never read a white text on black paper newspaper", it is fine.
At the same time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. If you have a research paper that Dark Mode is better for everyone, please share.
Well, it's very dogmatic.
Sure, for you it may be better, and if you "would never read a white text on black paper newspaper", it is fine.
At the same time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. If you have a research paper that Dark Mode is better for everyone, please share.
> Well, it's very dogmatic.
The article is also quite dogmatic though.
The article is also quite dogmatic though.
I disagree. The article points out sources for each of its claims.
The article is based on practical research, which I don't believe can be called "dogma".
Well, it says that reading on light background is better because of X. It's dogmatic in that X is important, and therefore, it's better to do so.
You can’t state it as a fact, it’s only your opinion. I’m using dark mode on my phone just because of the battery savings but I prefer much more light mode unless I’m reading before sleeping in a pitch black room.
fun fact, your retinal receptors are releasing transmitter in the dark and stop releasing it when activated by light.
[deleted]
>Useable e-paper displays might change that one day, but the technology is still in its infancy.
I run termux on top stock boox 3 as a thin(ish) client and it works amazingly well. It's some of the most enjoyable terminal time I have had in years because it's so limited.
I run termux on top stock boox 3 as a thin(ish) client and it works amazingly well. It's some of the most enjoyable terminal time I have had in years because it's so limited.
Apparently light-on-dark is terrible if the person has astigmatism: the edges get very blurry and doubled. There was an article on HN about this, specifically about keynote slides. Also apparently “in Europe and Asia, astigmatism affects between 30 and 60% of adults” (says Wikipedia).
I have it too, and couldn't figure out in the past why text sometimes looks horribly blurry and sometimes doesn't. With this knowledge, I realized that dark background is likely a factor.
So I like dark mode for the OS interface because it gets out of my way then, and just plain looks better. Same in apps where I click on icons and look at images, like in image editors. For reading, dark mode is torture—both with bright white text and low-contrast dark. When sites begin to switch to the dark mode following the browser, I'll have to disable that in the browser settings or deal with bright system and app interface.
However, why I can and do code with dark themes is a mystery. I even tried to bend Emacs to use a light theme for Org-mode and a dark one otherwise (not much luck, though).
I do wish that screens in the ‘light mode’ were closer to paper in terms of eye comfort. I had an e-ink device, and it was a godsend, pure bliss—you'd think that lower contrast would make reading harder but no. Something like HN's ‘black on a bit grayish with a hint of red’ emulates the experience somewhat. Just don't make text gray, please.
In related news, I'm irked that I can't have high monitor brightness for photographic images but lower for swathes of white background under text and in Jony Ive's bright flat windows. Because, you know, photos don't tend to have flood-fill of 100% white. Maybe I'll kludge something up for the browser to amend this.
I have it too, and couldn't figure out in the past why text sometimes looks horribly blurry and sometimes doesn't. With this knowledge, I realized that dark background is likely a factor.
So I like dark mode for the OS interface because it gets out of my way then, and just plain looks better. Same in apps where I click on icons and look at images, like in image editors. For reading, dark mode is torture—both with bright white text and low-contrast dark. When sites begin to switch to the dark mode following the browser, I'll have to disable that in the browser settings or deal with bright system and app interface.
However, why I can and do code with dark themes is a mystery. I even tried to bend Emacs to use a light theme for Org-mode and a dark one otherwise (not much luck, though).
I do wish that screens in the ‘light mode’ were closer to paper in terms of eye comfort. I had an e-ink device, and it was a godsend, pure bliss—you'd think that lower contrast would make reading harder but no. Something like HN's ‘black on a bit grayish with a hint of red’ emulates the experience somewhat. Just don't make text gray, please.
In related news, I'm irked that I can't have high monitor brightness for photographic images but lower for swathes of white background under text and in Jony Ive's bright flat windows. Because, you know, photos don't tend to have flood-fill of 100% white. Maybe I'll kludge something up for the browser to amend this.
Tried a lot of dark themes. I like it better, but with an astigmatism there’s no denying that I need glasses for dark mode but not for light mode. I hate wearing my glasses (20/20 in my good eye) so I recently made a switch to light mode. Everyone calls me a psychopath but I guess that’s what I get for doing what’s right for my case?
That's true for me as well. I couldn't read the oven clock (blue on black) at just 10 feet away. Anything bright on a dark background is just a blurry radiation pattern.
The reason dark-themed terminal and coding is fine, might be the monospace fonts. They are square-ish, so there is less need to find the edges accurately. They are also eligible on very cheap, trashy screens. As a side effect, code is readable in dark themes even with astigmatism. (No source, just a wild guess)
The reason dark-themed terminal and coding is fine, might be the monospace fonts. They are square-ish, so there is less need to find the edges accurately. They are also eligible on very cheap, trashy screens. As a side effect, code is readable in dark themes even with astigmatism. (No source, just a wild guess)
> code is readable in dark themes even with astigmatism
It doesn't make anything by itself, the difference in brightness between text and background is. I have a severe astigmatism on one eye, HN page with smaller font size is easier to read with it than a green-on-black terminal (same Noto Mono font). Red or blue colors for text on black background are also slightly harder to read due to the perception.
It doesn't make anything by itself, the difference in brightness between text and background is. I have a severe astigmatism on one eye, HN page with smaller font size is easier to read with it than a green-on-black terminal (same Noto Mono font). Red or blue colors for text on black background are also slightly harder to read due to the perception.
>I couldn't read the oven clock (blue on black) at just 10 feet away
I have good vision: no known issues, regular eye checkups, etc. But I find it nearly impossible to read most displays that use blue LEDs. If the background is blue (eg: timex indiglo watch) then it's fine. But blue leds on some of my home theater equipment drive me insane. Even if it isn't the letters/numbers themselves and it's just a regular circular power led, I find them really hard to look at.
I have good vision: no known issues, regular eye checkups, etc. But I find it nearly impossible to read most displays that use blue LEDs. If the background is blue (eg: timex indiglo watch) then it's fine. But blue leds on some of my home theater equipment drive me insane. Even if it isn't the letters/numbers themselves and it's just a regular circular power led, I find them really hard to look at.
I first noticed the blue light issue when xmas led lights were put on trees around the holidays. Blue blurry things. Now my credit union has their sign in blue and I can’t read it.
10 years later I developed astigmatism in both eyes. Dark mode is really blurry in some settings.
The blue light thing, as I understand it, is where you first begin to notice astigmatism. The wavelength is shorter and a very slight astigmatism becomes more apparent.
10 years later I developed astigmatism in both eyes. Dark mode is really blurry in some settings.
The blue light thing, as I understand it, is where you first begin to notice astigmatism. The wavelength is shorter and a very slight astigmatism becomes more apparent.
Whoa. I just did a quick test with someone who has astigmatism. We switched between Dark and Light themes in Google Keep. They were pretty surprised and said the difference was noticeable, that letters blurred together more in Dark mode.
I'm asytigmatic, light on dark is fine (and what I use everywhere) as long as it isn't #fff on #000 I'm OK so lots of my setup is quite light grey on dark grey.
The thing that really makes a difference for me is screen resolution (or more accurately, pixels per inch) on a modern 27" 4K I have far far fewer issues than I had on a 1280x1024 17" LCD - part of that is improvements in brightness/contrast and the technology as well though.
The thing that really makes a difference for me is screen resolution (or more accurately, pixels per inch) on a modern 27" 4K I have far far fewer issues than I had on a 1280x1024 17" LCD - part of that is improvements in brightness/contrast and the technology as well though.
I guess this explains why I hate OLED dark themes so much.
I have wondered for a long time about the hype around dark themes for this reason. No eye is perfect in terms of optical quality. Specifically, the lens can be misshaped and the vitreous can have impurities that lead to refraction of light.
If we look at bright light sources the pupil is almost closed, which means all light entering propagates close to the optical axis of the eye, where lens defects are not playing a huge role.
The less intense the light source gets, the more the pupil opens and more aperture is used. That means lens defects start to become more apparent and the probability the light crosses a part with inhomogeneities in the vitreous part becomes larger.
With dark themes our pupils open more, using a bigger aperture of our eyes, which allows small aberrations like astigmatism to get pronounced. These optical aberrations can lead to double vision (cover up one eye and look at the white letters on a dark background from far), for which our brain compensates when both eyes are used.
Of course, too much light isn't the answer either.
I'm not sure that this is the sole reason why light-on-dark is bad with astigmatism: because, presumably, the article about keynote slides was including presentations given in lit rooms—and eyes famously don't adjust too fast, so I don't think the pupils would react much to dark slides in a lit room. But that's only my conjectures.
Wow, this explains so much. I use a light color scheme (think default Eclipse theme) in my editor, even during late night coding binges, because I can see the text more clearly. I also have an astigmatism. Maybe related, text rendering affects me tremendously as well, like Windows/Linux text rendering forces me to squint even when the text is normal sized; but I don't have to squint on Mac OS.
Light on dark is always a bit blurrier for dark on light, because your eyes will tend to defocus when looking at a darker scene to compensate for the overall lower amount of light. This also increases the effect of optical aberrations, so those with astigmatism and the like may be affected to the point that a lighter background becomes preferable.
Only for light on solid dark. If you use light on non-solid dark it's fine. Can definitely said it as person with astigmatism.
Yes I see the text blurred, but it's simply less painful to read it in a dark room.
Dark mode is usefull and is not something new.
When car had integrated navigation system, the screen would go in dark mode if external lightning is too low.
Dark mode is usefull and is not something new.
When car had integrated navigation system, the screen would go in dark mode if external lightning is too low.
I have astigmatism and this is true for me and explains the dark hype in which I have hard time.
I like the solarized themes where it's not very light nor very dark but somewhere in between.
I like the solarized themes where it's not very light nor very dark but somewhere in between.
I’m 34. Had 20/20 vision all my life. Until around April this year from being in lockdown and stuck at home working more due to not going out and such.
I felt like I’m getting eye strain. And difficulty focusing. I ended up with glasses 3 weeks ago for “computer vision” I can’t wear them walking around the house as it makes me feel dizzy. But in front of the computer it makes a difference.
Think I’m gonna try find a good theme and try light mode for a while.
Edit: Except the iPhone 11, cos I get better battery life based on my usage. It's 7pm now, and phone has been unplugged since 8am, based on my usage its at 79%.
I felt like I’m getting eye strain. And difficulty focusing. I ended up with glasses 3 weeks ago for “computer vision” I can’t wear them walking around the house as it makes me feel dizzy. But in front of the computer it makes a difference.
Think I’m gonna try find a good theme and try light mode for a while.
Edit: Except the iPhone 11, cos I get better battery life based on my usage. It's 7pm now, and phone has been unplugged since 8am, based on my usage its at 79%.
I had to switch from contacts to glasses after leaving college and getting an office job. My eye doctor said staring at screens causes focusing issues.
To my knowledge, eye muscles may get sort-of ‘cramps’ where they get ‘stuck’ in the same flex configuration as they were, if you focus on the same nearby distance for hours and hours. Purportedly, it's even classified as a distinct kind of myopia (the only one that's fixable with exercise), but dunno how legit that is. What I know for certain, though, is that regular exercises that move the eyes and the focus relieve the strain a lot. Rotate the eyes, move side to side, move the focus back and forth, that sort of thing. Also focus on stuff outside the window more often.
As for contact lenses, afaik they're trash with computers because they make the eye dryer in addition to what you already get due to blinking more rarely. At least that's how it was back in the day, when I didn't last more than a month or so with contacts at computers.
As for contact lenses, afaik they're trash with computers because they make the eye dryer in addition to what you already get due to blinking more rarely. At least that's how it was back in the day, when I didn't last more than a month or so with contacts at computers.
I've always made it a point to stand up once an hour and walk out side for 5 minutes and come back, or go get coffee or a snack.
I started working from home in January due to the virus so my hours have gone from 10am - 6pm to 8am - 10pm. Working with lights off. Getting up less. :(
I started working from home in January due to the virus so my hours have gone from 10am - 6pm to 8am - 10pm. Working with lights off. Getting up less. :(
also if you have glare from LASIK or sth. There are however combinations of dark mode that are much more legible. colors and fonts and UI elements matter a lot too. Outlines and lines are perceived differently if dark. TWitter's dark mode for example is terrible
[deleted]
Dark modes are a choice. Light modes are a choice. Everyone is free to choose what they like, so trying to influence people one way or another, or criticising their choice, is unproductive.
I live in Wales, a country where our default weather is "meh". I live on the dark side of a mountain. I work in a room with no external windows. Yes I use dark modes, and if you used light mode in my office I'd think you were a fucking nutcase, but I'd leave you to it because that's your choice.
Light mode in my office is painful, dark mode in bright sunshine doesn't work. Shocker.
The parent article here is actually difficult for me to read; the text appears to have ghostly halos for me. Perhaps I'm being hypocritical when my own blog (https://senryu.pub/afternoonrobot) isn't much different; although I made a concious effort there to make sure it inverts easily with iOS dark-mode/Dark Reader etc.
I live in Wales, a country where our default weather is "meh". I live on the dark side of a mountain. I work in a room with no external windows. Yes I use dark modes, and if you used light mode in my office I'd think you were a fucking nutcase, but I'd leave you to it because that's your choice.
Light mode in my office is painful, dark mode in bright sunshine doesn't work. Shocker.
The parent article here is actually difficult for me to read; the text appears to have ghostly halos for me. Perhaps I'm being hypocritical when my own blog (https://senryu.pub/afternoonrobot) isn't much different; although I made a concious effort there to make sure it inverts easily with iOS dark-mode/Dark Reader etc.
> Dark modes are a choice. Light modes are a choice. Everyone is free to choose what they like
In the Windows 95 era, we really could just flip a few settings in our OS and everything[0] would conform to our color and font preferences. Unfortunately we have no regressed to the point that only two options are offered, and even then only sometimes.
Hooray for progress.
[0] very nearly everything.
In the Windows 95 era, we really could just flip a few settings in our OS and everything[0] would conform to our color and font preferences. Unfortunately we have no regressed to the point that only two options are offered, and even then only sometimes.
Hooray for progress.
[0] very nearly everything.
Precisely. And then people defend slow bloated software and systems by claiming this software is "doing much more today". Yeah, not really. Google Docs does nothing WordPerfect couldn't do (and much better) back in the '90s. If you take away collaborative editing (which is janky at best, and surely could have been done in the '90s if anyone cared) then Google Docs is doing much much less. Slack is IRC with pictures (which I'm positive existed well before Slack), and yet consumes gigs of RAM. What the fuck are we doing. IRC offered way more customization.
Dark mode really gets me though. I've been doing themes on X11 since 1995 at least. You could even do themes on Windows 3.x. Why is everyone killing so much time and energy discussing this binary mode "feature" in 2020? It makes no goddamn sense.
Dark mode really gets me though. I've been doing themes on X11 since 1995 at least. You could even do themes on Windows 3.x. Why is everyone killing so much time and energy discussing this binary mode "feature" in 2020? It makes no goddamn sense.
Get Ripcord. The only sane way to use Slack or Discord.
I agree with you that dark mode is a choice, one that I took many many years ago. My first assembler program was one that inverted the screen with a button press on my Atari ST. This so I could adjust for a dark or a light day. Now I'm using f.lux to turn down the blue light and to invert the screen if needed. Also some firefox plugin to make all homepages darkmode.
I have the ghosting halos too but this is something that you need to see an optician for. It can be corrected for but might have different sideeffects that you can or cannot live with :-) For me the world is slightly tipping over to the left if I use the glasses I'm supposed to use. And looking down and then up again is also very hard still after a year.
I have the ghosting halos too but this is something that you need to see an optician for. It can be corrected for but might have different sideeffects that you can or cannot live with :-) For me the world is slightly tipping over to the left if I use the glasses I'm supposed to use. And looking down and then up again is also very hard still after a year.
> I live on the dark side of a mountain. I work in a room with no external windows.
You don't have lamps? I think most people prefer to have properly lit rooms, and then you also want a light theme on the computer. If you like sitting in the darkness this might not apply to you.
You don't have lamps? I think most people prefer to have properly lit rooms, and then you also want a light theme on the computer. If you like sitting in the darkness this might not apply to you.
Haha I do have lamps, at least, though it's not quite the same as getting actual daylight. I'm now using a bunch of Hue bulbs to try to emulate real light a bit better. Even still, I prefer dark themes for most things. I'm not really talking white-text-on-black though, I usually use https://draculatheme.com
> Dark modes are a choice. Light modes are a choice
Though I generally prefer dark modes myself, something like this article might inform a developer as to which mode they will develop first and which they will set as a default.
Anecdotally, I prefer light-themed marketing landings with dark-themed application environments.
Though I generally prefer dark modes myself, something like this article might inform a developer as to which mode they will develop first and which they will set as a default.
Anecdotally, I prefer light-themed marketing landings with dark-themed application environments.
No one seems to be mentioning the lighting of the room you're in, inside/outside, or the time of day. Ambient light is one of the primary factors that make light or dark mode better at a particular moment. See redshift to make light mode more tolerable at night.
Yeah, I'm not sure you can say anything meaningful about eye strain and readability without accounting for room lighting, glare, and other reflective surfaces and distractions. If I'm in a dark room with a bright screen, it's almost physically painful to stare at the screen. I have to turn the brightness way down, and then I lose contrast and have to strain even more. In an office with horrible flourescent lighting, highly-reflective white walls and surfaces, metallic accents reflecting light into my peripheral vision, reflective monitors (Apple displays are the worst), and eyeglasses, I'm practically blinded. The last thing I want is glaring white light from my application windows.
There are things other than black-on-white and the inverse. I've been using Solarized dark where possible for years, especially in code windows. White-on-black is horrible, but pastel colors on a slate blue-gray background is the most comfortable option for me.
There are things other than black-on-white and the inverse. I've been using Solarized dark where possible for years, especially in code windows. White-on-black is horrible, but pastel colors on a slate blue-gray background is the most comfortable option for me.
If you're using a monitor with separate brightness and contrast settings, you might also choose to lower the contrast a bit. When my monitor's contrast is at 75%, white doesn't really get less bright until somewhere around 30% brightness. But I'd I lower contrast to 50%, then 50% brightness makes a bigger difference, without losing readability.
Exactly this. I don't use dark mode during the day, but sure as hell dark mode by night saves my eyes.
I use light mode when I am working outside (which is a lot now that I work from home) or when I am at the office as it's got bright lights. At night or when I am in a darker environment in general, dark mode is great. Being able to quickly adjust the screen brightness also helps immensely (more so than the actual mode, actually... if I had to choose a single mode, it would be light mode, as dark mode is totally un-usable in a very light room/outside).
I honestly don't know why they didn't use the light sensor like in the iPhone.
Exactly! When I started using dark mode, it felt so much more pleasant for my eyes. After a while I realized this was because I was in generally dark environments a lot, so I started to switch up my environment instead: I.e. light up the room with a large ceiling lamp instead of just a small reading lamp on a desk etc.
I noticed when I'm working in the morning or generally when it's bright outside, it's sooo much more relaxing with black on white text. With night mode, I'd need to up the brightness way more to be able to comfortably read and type. It was sort of a revelation to me because the "night mode is better" mindset was so engrained into my mind at that point.
I noticed when I'm working in the morning or generally when it's bright outside, it's sooo much more relaxing with black on white text. With night mode, I'd need to up the brightness way more to be able to comfortably read and type. It was sort of a revelation to me because the "night mode is better" mindset was so engrained into my mind at that point.
iOS was late to the dark theme train, but they did it right. One setting can change between light and dark depending on time of day, sunset times, etc.
I just change the brightness of the monitor twice a day.
...buried 2 or 3 menu layers deep, using a magic sequence of three buttons to handle all the up-down/left-right multi-level hierarchical menu navigation complexities.
One of Apple's biggest innovations imho was to make brightness +/- two of the default keyboard buttons. Every keyboard should replace their F-keys with brightness by default (seriously, who uses F-keys? It's wasted real estate.)
TV's should do this too. With smart TV's/rokus/firesticks/whatever, what's the use of having a channel toggle? Repurpose that for one-button brightness shifts. I don't need my TV being a spotlight into my face when I turn it on to watch a movie at night with the lights dimmed.
Dark mode and red shift are helpful, but really this thread nails it... it's relative contrast that is the big eyestrain contributor. It should be as easy to change brightness as it is volume.
One of Apple's biggest innovations imho was to make brightness +/- two of the default keyboard buttons. Every keyboard should replace their F-keys with brightness by default (seriously, who uses F-keys? It's wasted real estate.)
TV's should do this too. With smart TV's/rokus/firesticks/whatever, what's the use of having a channel toggle? Repurpose that for one-button brightness shifts. I don't need my TV being a spotlight into my face when I turn it on to watch a movie at night with the lights dimmed.
Dark mode and red shift are helpful, but really this thread nails it... it's relative contrast that is the big eyestrain contributor. It should be as easy to change brightness as it is volume.
> seriously, who uses F-keys? It's wasted real estate
I'm sorry, what?
I use them all the time. F5 for refreshing all kinds of stuff, or for setting breakpoints in my IDE. F7, F8, F9 for controlling the debugger, other combinations for building/running. F12 for opening developer tools in the browser. Some programs still use F1 for help. F2 in Windows explorer for renaming things. And so on and so forth.
I can't stand keyboards without function keys, or where you have to press Fn to activate them.
I'm sorry, what?
I use them all the time. F5 for refreshing all kinds of stuff, or for setting breakpoints in my IDE. F7, F8, F9 for controlling the debugger, other combinations for building/running. F12 for opening developer tools in the browser. Some programs still use F1 for help. F2 in Windows explorer for renaming things. And so on and so forth.
I can't stand keyboards without function keys, or where you have to press Fn to activate them.
That's because you're used to them, that's fine. Many of those actions can be done via key combos or other keys (esp on a Mac), like C+R to refresh, C+Sh+I for browser console or Enter to rename a file. Function keys at this point are certainly old school and could even be considered an atavism, like the Print Screen button or the numeric keypad.
Some functions have replacements, others don't. Just one example: both F5 and CTRL-R in browsers do a refresh; CTRL-F5 does a hard refresh (also renews the cache); I don't think there's a non-function-key alternative for that. Losing the function keys would be a major nuisance.
The numeric keypad is useful to me too. A bit less than the function keys, perhaps, but when entering a list of numbers it works so much better. What's more: keyboards without numeric keypad also tend not to have the section with ins/del, home/end, pgup/pgdn and arrow keys; instead those keys are often arranged in cumbersome and inconsistent layouts. I use those a lot too.
I don't know in exactly which meaning you use the word "atavism", but I do know that having all these keys available, in a familiar layout, is very very useful to me.
The numeric keypad is useful to me too. A bit less than the function keys, perhaps, but when entering a list of numbers it works so much better. What's more: keyboards without numeric keypad also tend not to have the section with ins/del, home/end, pgup/pgdn and arrow keys; instead those keys are often arranged in cumbersome and inconsistent layouts. I use those a lot too.
I don't know in exactly which meaning you use the word "atavism", but I do know that having all these keys available, in a familiar layout, is very very useful to me.
In the meaning of outdated artifacts, like those turbo buttons on old PC boxes or three button mice. Fn + arrow keys or fn+bksp for del easily replace the specific navigation keys and are for me easier to find by touch with less movement of the wrist.
I had the impression you meant something like that, but I wasn't sure (I'm not a native English speaker) so I looked it up and the dictionary gave me a different meaning, so that got me confused.
In Firefox CTRL+SHIFT+R does a hard refresh as well. I don’t know about other browsers.
Tons of software uses the function keys, especially Windows/cross-platform software. Lots of engineering tools, editing tools, content authoring, programming, etc.
Removing them would break compatibility with an awful lot of things, including Windows itself (which lots of people run using Bootcamp or Parallels). Maybe they're weird, I don't know. Momentum is a powerful force, especially when it comes to software design.
Also for the record, Print Screen takes a screenshot on Windows (and on a lot of Linux systems), which is intuitive and simple. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's an abandoned key.
Removing them would break compatibility with an awful lot of things, including Windows itself (which lots of people run using Bootcamp or Parallels). Maybe they're weird, I don't know. Momentum is a powerful force, especially when it comes to software design.
Also for the record, Print Screen takes a screenshot on Windows (and on a lot of Linux systems), which is intuitive and simple. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's an abandoned key.
It's insane how monitor software hasn't developed an inch from the 90s. How hard can it be to have an open API for the basic controls at least so the OS can adjust them? Everything about my monitor is great - 144hz refresh rate, great viewing angle and colors - except if I want to change any of the physical properties (brightness, contrast) I'm clicking around on a variety of buttons that I can't see like I'm trying to set the clock on my VCR.
This actually exists, and it’s called DDC/CI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel
I only recently learned about it myself while setting up a new monitor and asking myself wtf is this DDC/CI setting in the menu.
I only recently learned about it myself while setting up a new monitor and asking myself wtf is this DDC/CI setting in the menu.
Thanks for the hot tip! I've been struggling with my monitor's menu buttons, but after reading your comment I found the macOS tool MonitorControl, which works perfectly.
I can control laptop brightness with `/sys/class/backlight/foo`, and my asus external monitor advertises capabilities over hdmi with `modprobe i2c-dev` and then `ddcutil capabilities`. Apparently this is governed by something called MCCS. You can find more info on the arch wiki.
I have a script with ddccontrol to change brightness of my external monitor:
ddccontrol -r 0x10 -w ${NUM}0 dev:/dev/i2c-${DEV_NUM}
BACKLIGHT_PATH="/sys/class/backlight/intel_backlight/brightness"
sh -c "echo ${NUM} > $BACKLIGHT_PATH"
If your monitor supports DDC [1] you can control the brightness with MonitorControl [2]. It's fantastic. However it's basically impossible to figure out before buying if monitors do or don't support DDC. In general Dell Ultrasharps do, and I was surprised when the old Acer I'm on now did as well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel [2] https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel [2] https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl
I agree that brightness should be easier to reach. On my Dell monitor, it can be configured to be behind one button press, then changed with up / down. On my LG monitor, it's atrocious. Have to go 2-3 layers deep with an awful joystick.
This is one of the reasons I absolutely love my Apple display. It changes brightness automatically and most of the time it does it right.
Also, DDC/CI is a thing and (sometimes) works.
On Windows, I've found Twinkle Tray on the store works reasonably well.
For Linux there's ddcci-dkms on Ubuntu and ddcci-driver-linux-dkms for Arch Linux (on the AUR). They allow configuring the brightness as a regular backlight device. See the Arch Linux Wiki [0].
[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Backlight#External_moni...
This is one of the reasons I absolutely love my Apple display. It changes brightness automatically and most of the time it does it right.
Also, DDC/CI is a thing and (sometimes) works.
On Windows, I've found Twinkle Tray on the store works reasonably well.
For Linux there's ddcci-dkms on Ubuntu and ddcci-driver-linux-dkms for Arch Linux (on the AUR). They allow configuring the brightness as a regular backlight device. See the Arch Linux Wiki [0].
[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Backlight#External_moni...
https://clickmonitorddc.bplaced.net/
I rarely use the interface anymore, this software has replaced it. Unfortunately I'm unaware of anything that works well for any other operating system.
There's a rust library I've used in the past for DDC I think, but that means coding your own implementations, and I was only making a source switcher
> seriously, who uses F-keys?
Mainframe programmers.
They are an essential part of interacting with an IBM mainframe (even for basic things like paging up and down through documents).
Mainframe programmers.
They are an essential part of interacting with an IBM mainframe (even for basic things like paging up and down through documents).
> "One of Apple's biggest innovations imho was to make brightness +/- two of the default keyboard buttons"
Microsoft copied this with the Surface Book (at least). And in typical Microsoft style, the dedicated brightness buttons control the brightness of the keyboard internal LEDs. Changing Windows' screen brightness is one of the metakeys + del/backspace, not indicated on them.
Microsoft copied this with the Surface Book (at least). And in typical Microsoft style, the dedicated brightness buttons control the brightness of the keyboard internal LEDs. Changing Windows' screen brightness is one of the metakeys + del/backspace, not indicated on them.
I just got a new Surface tablet, and the tablet cover keyboard's brightness buttons definitely control the screen, not the keyboard lighting.
> Every keyboard should replace their F-keys with brightness by default (seriously, who uses F-keys? It's wasted real estate.)
If the keyboard has media keys, then, generally speaking, F2 and F3 will be linked to brightness by default.
If the keyboard has media keys, then, generally speaking, F2 and F3 will be linked to brightness by default.
I have an external keyboard that's a common split-ergo design, probably one of the top 3 workhorses on amazon for "ergo keyboard" (Apple hardware is pretty, but it's not ergonomic).
By dumb luck I just found that it's ScrLk and Pause/Break that do brightness controls on my external monitor on os-x.
I wish apple made it as easy to remap these kinds of global shortcut keys as IDE's do.
By dumb luck I just found that it's ScrLk and Pause/Break that do brightness controls on my external monitor on os-x.
I wish apple made it as easy to remap these kinds of global shortcut keys as IDE's do.
Back in the day of CRTs there used to be a dial on monitors to set the brighness. Have you only ever used Apple computers?
Yeah, now the brightness controls are a touch screen themselves.
That’s not even a joke.
That’s not even a joke.
One more nice thing that some computers do is automatically adjusting brightness depending on your ambient light. Like phones which have dedicated light sensor. But at least my computer uses webcam (or sensor near a webcam) to determine ambient brightness and adjust monitor brightness. EDIT. ah, yes, and i don't use external monitor. But makes me think, why monitor manufacturers have not added that one light sensor to their products.
And sync multiple monitors to have the same brightness twice a day?
Even with brightness adjustments, working in complete dark at night the dark mode is much easier to use. The keyboard lights on the lowest level is a bit too bright in these conditions, white screens are a punch in the face for me.
Even with brightness adjustments, working in complete dark at night the dark mode is much easier to use. The keyboard lights on the lowest level is a bit too bright in these conditions, white screens are a punch in the face for me.
F.lux deserves a mention
I’ve been using Flux for a decade and it was my saviour from headaches and eye strain. Before that I was experimenting with dark themes and after running into f.lux I never really needed to. Im usually ok with whatever default theme is. I’been using f-lux at the lowest temperature and my eye strain never came back.
It was so successful that the basic functionality is built into every OS I can think of these days.
redshift is also an option.
Exactly this. If I have pager duty and wake up in the night and need to read an e-mail (LCD screen), light mode blinds me so much I cannot even keep my eyes open. With dark mode I can read fine.
This is what I like about iOS (and probably every OS has it): after sundown, turn on dark mode.
This is what I like about iOS (and probably every OS has it): after sundown, turn on dark mode.
The most important part is preference IMO. People have the right to choose which is right for them, and if they determine that dark mode is better for them (even if they just think it looks better), having a setting in the OS that cascades down to all applications and websites is just a nice feature to have.
This is why prefers-color-scheme is the perfect mechanism for this. Simply swap out your CSS variables and automatically your site is immediately more accessible to people who prefer dark mode.
This is why prefers-color-scheme is the perfect mechanism for this. Simply swap out your CSS variables and automatically your site is immediately more accessible to people who prefer dark mode.
Except some people prefer dark UI but light websites. You can't please everyone. There should be a per-site based setting such as microphone access etc. where if prefer-color-scheme: dark is detected, user can toggle it should they choose.
But, as a site owner it's my prerogative on the decisions I make regarding design. It's not always about choice :)
But, as a site owner it's my prerogative on the decisions I make regarding design. It's not always about choice :)
I fall in this category. I like light-on-dark background for code and parts where the text is well-spaced. Mainly because it gives place for more distinguishable colors. However I hate reading blocks of texts in white-on-black. I have set Mail to use light background and I wish there was a way to tell Safari to not communicate a dark preference.
Thank you. Everything else around this dicussion is pointless. If some people like light or dark mode thats up to them to choose. At least we're getting some choice back in our UIs.
I wouldn't agree with that. People may have made their choice based on incorrect research or incorrect assumptions: there is value in discussing the latest research.
It's like saying discussions about whether cigarettes are good or bad for you are pointless, the important thing is that people are able to buy them if they want.
It's like saying discussions about whether cigarettes are good or bad for you are pointless, the important thing is that people are able to buy them if they want.
Well I never made a decision based on a pretense that I was going to save my eyes by switching. I just prefer one particular scheme better and find more pleasant to work with all day, it doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that for me.
Your comparison to the cigarette discussion is an interesting point. The article didn't present anything particularly strong in regards to studies around this though so I'm unsure what there is to discuss, aside from speculation on whats good and bad for our eyes. If we're speculating I'd wager regular breaks and getting away from your screen as much as possible is far more impactful that which color scheme you choose.
Your comparison to the cigarette discussion is an interesting point. The article didn't present anything particularly strong in regards to studies around this though so I'm unsure what there is to discuss, aside from speculation on whats good and bad for our eyes. If we're speculating I'd wager regular breaks and getting away from your screen as much as possible is far more impactful that which color scheme you choose.
No sorry, that has nothing to-do with research, but taste.
In fact, research like that i call bullshit, its like 'research' food, 'scientists' found out that that people prefer yellow carrots because red is a warning color.
In fact, research like that i call bullshit, its like 'research' food, 'scientists' found out that that people prefer yellow carrots because red is a warning color.
This is where I land too. My IDE is dark. So are my terminals and slack. Everything else is black on white background. I tried using dark mode in the reading mode on my browsers, but it never felt natural, especially for long form reading.
> even if they just think it looks better
This is the reason why I use dark mode now. Eye strain and saving battery I don't think about. Easier to read? Sure, because it's my preference. I even use lights behind my monitors to counteract the "flash" you get when you switch from a dark IDE to a white web browser. I don't like complete _darkness_, I just like the look.
This is the reason why I use dark mode now. Eye strain and saving battery I don't think about. Easier to read? Sure, because it's my preference. I even use lights behind my monitors to counteract the "flash" you get when you switch from a dark IDE to a white web browser. I don't like complete _darkness_, I just like the look.
These articles are so bizarre to me: he's writing about dark mode and light mode as if you can just... _choose_ one or the other and be roughly equally happy either way? I would never even think to look at "studies" when it's blindingly obvious: light mode makes my eyes hurt a lot, dark mode is very comfortable.
The only time I can even consider using light mode is mid-day with plenty of natural light around. At night when all the lights are dim, even the lowest brightness on my laptop (which is quite low), plus redshift, plus blue-blocking glasses, isn't enough to be comfortable in light mode. I use the "Deluminate" extension for Chrome to make all sites dark, all the time.
Perhaps I'm unusually sensitive to light (I think I am), but based on the comments here I think I'm far from alone.
The only time I can even consider using light mode is mid-day with plenty of natural light around. At night when all the lights are dim, even the lowest brightness on my laptop (which is quite low), plus redshift, plus blue-blocking glasses, isn't enough to be comfortable in light mode. I use the "Deluminate" extension for Chrome to make all sites dark, all the time.
Perhaps I'm unusually sensitive to light (I think I am), but based on the comments here I think I'm far from alone.
I think this disclaimer at the bottom might explain some of it:
> This post is day 04 of my #100DaysToOffload challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from https://100daystooffload.com.
I find that the intent behind publishing any piece of content is an incredibly accurate predictor for its usefulness in my experience. When you can ascertain that of course. But essentially, my rule of thumb is that if the chain of events looks like this:
1. I really want to write a blog post
2. What should it be about?
then I won't find much useful in it, regardless of the topic. But if it's the other way around:
1. I really want to share this idea of mine
2. What medium should I use to deliver it?
then I often find it useful to me, again regardless of the topic.
Funnily enough, the title of the author's next blog post in this series captures this idea well: "Writing With SEO In Mind"
> This post is day 04 of my #100DaysToOffload challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from https://100daystooffload.com.
I find that the intent behind publishing any piece of content is an incredibly accurate predictor for its usefulness in my experience. When you can ascertain that of course. But essentially, my rule of thumb is that if the chain of events looks like this:
1. I really want to write a blog post
2. What should it be about?
then I won't find much useful in it, regardless of the topic. But if it's the other way around:
1. I really want to share this idea of mine
2. What medium should I use to deliver it?
then I often find it useful to me, again regardless of the topic.
Funnily enough, the title of the author's next blog post in this series captures this idea well: "Writing With SEO In Mind"
I wish this was the top comment; it would save us a lot of debate :).
Crank down the brightness on your monitor a good bit (more than you think you should), switch to light mode and stay there for the day. The initial dark-light switch is super jarring, I find, but light mode proper is actually fine.
And it's far easier to tolerate an instance of dark mode in a lighter-themed environment than the reverse because the initial switch is so much more jarring than light->dark (which can also be jarring, but it's not as jarring)
And it's far easier to tolerate an instance of dark mode in a lighter-themed environment than the reverse because the initial switch is so much more jarring than light->dark (which can also be jarring, but it's not as jarring)
I really just don't understand this pushback. I posted a comment about eye strain. I've been using computers for almost 30 years. Do you really think I haven't tried turning down the brightness? Is it that hard to believe that there are people out there that sincerely, legitimately, prefer light-on-dark text (possibly due to physiological differences in the eyes or brain)? Why this need to "correct" people? Just let people do what works for them!
(If you meant your comment to be "I found this works for me: ..." or "Have you tried ...?", then write it that way. The imperative mood is off-putting.)
FWIW: On my laptop, which I use most of the time these days, I adjust the brightness continually, probably 20+ times a day, and keep it pretty low. (I buy Thinkpads partly because their minimum brightness is so low.) On my desktop monitor, which is more annoying to adjust, I actually keep it at 0 most of the time, and bump it to 35 when the sun is out.
(If you meant your comment to be "I found this works for me: ..." or "Have you tried ...?", then write it that way. The imperative mood is off-putting.)
FWIW: On my laptop, which I use most of the time these days, I adjust the brightness continually, probably 20+ times a day, and keep it pretty low. (I buy Thinkpads partly because their minimum brightness is so low.) On my desktop monitor, which is more annoying to adjust, I actually keep it at 0 most of the time, and bump it to 35 when the sun is out.
They taught us this in advertising. White text scatters over the iris on a dark background, so it’s harder to read the copy. I’ve even read it in UX articles. It was amusing to get out of school and into the tech industry to find dark mode everywhere.
Granted, I use it too. Both my terminal and editor have dark themes. I’m not really sure why. The terminal isn’t really a big deal to me. I could go either way there. But I’ve just never found a lighter color theme that wasn’t offensive in an editor. I always try them for a bit and end up switching back.
Granted, I use it too. Both my terminal and editor have dark themes. I’m not really sure why. The terminal isn’t really a big deal to me. I could go either way there. But I’ve just never found a lighter color theme that wasn’t offensive in an editor. I always try them for a bit and end up switching back.
For a light color theme with a slightly different take than usual, I would recommend Flatwhite.
The differentiating idea behind it is that for dark syntax themes, it makes sense to have the foreground of text be different colors. In contrast, for light syntax themes, it makes sense to have the background of text be different colors.
Atom: https://github.com/biletskyy/flatwhite-syntax Sublime Text 3: https://github.com/Willamin/flatwhite
The differentiating idea behind it is that for dark syntax themes, it makes sense to have the foreground of text be different colors. In contrast, for light syntax themes, it makes sense to have the background of text be different colors.
Atom: https://github.com/biletskyy/flatwhite-syntax Sublime Text 3: https://github.com/Willamin/flatwhite
Ooo, I like this. This seems like a close-ish replacement in VSCode but the pic doesn't even exist: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=esz.them...
I don't think VS Code actually supports background color styles for syntax highlighting.
https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/3429
I ran into this trying to do a Code theme a few months ago. (My favorite light theme -- and I am mostly a light theme person, as I have never believed dark mode was a particularly good idea except for terminal windows -- is the default theme from the all-but-defunct Mac editor Espresso, which used subtle background coloring in some places.)
https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/3429
I ran into this trying to do a Code theme a few months ago. (My favorite light theme -- and I am mostly a light theme person, as I have never believed dark mode was a particularly good idea except for terminal windows -- is the default theme from the all-but-defunct Mac editor Espresso, which used subtle background coloring in some places.)
Thought it looked familiar, and I realized I saw the idea in an old Nikita Propokov screencast. Nice to see him mentioned there and Clojure code as an example.
If science says I'd be more productive with a light theme, then we need better science.
"On a biological level, our eyes prefer the contrast between a light background and dark foreground."
On a biological level, our eyes prefer not to stare at a light source all day every day. Yet here we are.
"On a biological level, our eyes prefer the contrast between a light background and dark foreground."
On a biological level, our eyes prefer not to stare at a light source all day every day. Yet here we are.
That's a bit like saying stereo speakers are too loud. That's why we adjust the volume very frequently.
For monitors, you should be adjusting the brightness frequently and in accordance with the ambient light level.
If you do that, you should perceive the background of your light mode content as neutral and so inoffensive that you don't even notice it.
For monitors, you should be adjusting the brightness frequently and in accordance with the ambient light level.
If you do that, you should perceive the background of your light mode content as neutral and so inoffensive that you don't even notice it.
I've tried different options, and know what works for me and what doesn't. Not saying it's the same for everybody, but I'm pretty confident that (1) dark mode works wonders for me, and (2) I'm not the only one.
Science says we read faster with black on white. But reading speed isn't important when you're coding, comfort is.
I recall the argument for a dark theme in editors/IDEs was to make it visually easier to see color differences in code syntax. With a white background, the white light competes with the colors. Where as if you're reading an article on the web, you'll really just need to discern the text and not so much the color.
> I’m not really sure why.
For me, it’s because too much white background feels like staring directly at a light globe for several hours a day, and it hurts my eyes.
For me, it’s because too much white background feels like staring directly at a light globe for several hours a day, and it hurts my eyes.
I can’t argue with that. I think the syntax highlighting is also part of it. It’s hard to have vivid, readily meaningful colors against a background that is washing everything out. Shades of dark text just aren’t as compelling. Come to think of it, that’s probably why most light themes are “solarized”. I guess you can only go so bright.
> Granted, I use it too. Both my terminal and editor have dark themes. I’m not really sure why. The terminal isn’t really a big deal to me. I could go either way there. But I’ve just never found a lighter color theme that wasn’t offensive in an editor. I always try them for a bit and end up switching back.
I spent ages hunting for a VSCode theme that wasn't just a blob of undifferentiated white. Turns out, now light themes are designed as dark themes first, flipped and just generally obey the rules of dark themes (eg. color pops out a ton in dark mode, it's a much more balanced part of the UI in a positive polarity environment and can be used more liberally).
We used to just design UIs, and most of what people started calling light themes were actually just "normal, not trying to be obsessively dark UI design". Normal UI design has really wide latitude to use a lot of stuff, dark theme is a much more narrow, specific philosophy in comparison. Take a look at eg. Office apps. The default "light" theme isn't super white, it's called "Colorful", is colorful, and it looks great. It just does what looks good without trying to be especially light or dark and surprise surprise, it works.
What did I end up with? Visual Studio Blue. All the different UI things are various very distinct shades of blue so the app has a characterful look and the UI elements are clearly differentiated, and the background has a slightly yellow hue to it. Does it look a little early 2000s-y? Yes. But it works.
I spent ages hunting for a VSCode theme that wasn't just a blob of undifferentiated white. Turns out, now light themes are designed as dark themes first, flipped and just generally obey the rules of dark themes (eg. color pops out a ton in dark mode, it's a much more balanced part of the UI in a positive polarity environment and can be used more liberally).
We used to just design UIs, and most of what people started calling light themes were actually just "normal, not trying to be obsessively dark UI design". Normal UI design has really wide latitude to use a lot of stuff, dark theme is a much more narrow, specific philosophy in comparison. Take a look at eg. Office apps. The default "light" theme isn't super white, it's called "Colorful", is colorful, and it looks great. It just does what looks good without trying to be especially light or dark and surprise surprise, it works.
What did I end up with? Visual Studio Blue. All the different UI things are various very distinct shades of blue so the app has a characterful look and the UI elements are clearly differentiated, and the background has a slightly yellow hue to it. Does it look a little early 2000s-y? Yes. But it works.
>White text scatters over the iris on a dark background, so it’s harder to read the copy. I’ve even read it in UX articles.
That doesn't make sense. Why does light from white text scatter, but not light from white background?
That doesn't make sense. Why does light from white text scatter, but not light from white background?
I’ll admit it’s not the best phrasing (and I’m definitely not an ophthalmologist, so I’m playing fast and loose here). Your pupils dilate to let in more light because there’s less light overall when the background is black. This causes your lens to distort slightly, thus making the edges of the white text appear to be fuzzy or bleed into surrounding characters. I couldn’t find a scientific source on this, but a couple articles called it the “Halation effect”. Over time, this creates eye strain, and it’s apparently worse for users who have astigmatism. Of course, if the text is sufficiently large enough, this effect should be at least somewhat mitigated. Generally, at least in my use cases, it’s not large enough. Although the more I think about it, I’m rarely really staring at white on black. It’s usually more like various colors against a very dark navy. I should probably just rest my eyes more...
>[...] This causes your lens to distort slightly, thus making the edges of the white text appear to be fuzzy or bleed into surrounding characters
The effect you're describing is correct, but the mechanism isn't. Aperture (pupil) size directly affects how focused the image is. The smaller the aperture, the sharper the image is. As an extreme example, if your aperture is a single point (a pinhole camera), the image can be focused without a lens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#Maximum_and_minimum_a...
>I couldn’t find a scientific source on this, but a couple articles called it the “Halation effect”.
Articles describing this seems to say it's caused by the film medium, rather than being an optical effect.
The effect you're describing is correct, but the mechanism isn't. Aperture (pupil) size directly affects how focused the image is. The smaller the aperture, the sharper the image is. As an extreme example, if your aperture is a single point (a pinhole camera), the image can be focused without a lens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#Maximum_and_minimum_a...
>I couldn’t find a scientific source on this, but a couple articles called it the “Halation effect”.
Articles describing this seems to say it's caused by the film medium, rather than being an optical effect.
> As an extreme example, if your aperture is a single point (a pinhole camera), the image can be focused without a lens.
Diffraction limits the sharpness, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system. Pesky wave nature of light in action.
> Articles describing this seems to say it's caused by the film medium, rather than being an optical effect.
Halation in film is caused by reflection from the back of the film. Most of them have an anti-halation layer to reduce this effect. I don't see any reason why one's eye wouldn't also be vulnerable to this effect (and probably has some biological mechanism to prevent light from being reflected out of the eye. Cats sure don't have this, though.)
Diffraction limits the sharpness, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system. Pesky wave nature of light in action.
> Articles describing this seems to say it's caused by the film medium, rather than being an optical effect.
Halation in film is caused by reflection from the back of the film. Most of them have an anti-halation layer to reduce this effect. I don't see any reason why one's eye wouldn't also be vulnerable to this effect (and probably has some biological mechanism to prevent light from being reflected out of the eye. Cats sure don't have this, though.)
> Articles describing this seems to say it's caused by the film medium, rather than being an optical effect.
Yeah, I noticed that. Searching the term directly gave me results related to film, but when I used other terms describing the effect they mentioned it in a different context. Makes me wonder if someone is just confused.
Yeah, I noticed that. Searching the term directly gave me results related to film, but when I used other terms describing the effect they mentioned it in a different context. Makes me wonder if someone is just confused.
To understand the difference between a small pupil and a large one, it's useful to understand how "aperture" settings work on a camera: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
Specifically, bright light results in a small pupil which allows for better focus. And low light results in a large pupil which reduces focus.
Specifically, bright light results in a small pupil which allows for better focus. And low light results in a large pupil which reduces focus.
This makes intuitive sense to me. I assume it’s to do with more overall light being emitted from a white background/black text combo being easier for our eye to process.
Yup, the light theme advantage is due to it emitting more light than a dark theme at the same brightness setting.
[deleted]
> I’ve decided to stop using dark mode across all of my devices, because research suggests that going to the dark side ain’t all that.
It makes sense to use research to make a decision that is based on data that applies equally across a population. But for something that is a personal preference, it doesn't make as much sense to rely on population-level data. If you started using dark mode because you liked it, then you shouldn't stop using it because, on average, the general population performs marginally better with light mode.
It makes sense to use research to make a decision that is based on data that applies equally across a population. But for something that is a personal preference, it doesn't make as much sense to rely on population-level data. If you started using dark mode because you liked it, then you shouldn't stop using it because, on average, the general population performs marginally better with light mode.
Exactly. That's like saying research suggests that the average person fits best into a medium size T-shirt, so that's best T-shirt for me.
I use dark mode IDEs exclusively because light mode ones remind me of my early experiences with Eclipse, Ant builds, and horrible enterprise Java. Which just isn’t something I want to think about when I’m working on projects that I enjoy.
I know this sounds like a hot-take, but any analysis of "dark mode vs. light mode" that doesn't account for ambient light is HIGHLY suspect. This is particularly true if the analysis looks at eye-strain.
I work for a business that does contract work, and I find myself working from a variety of offices, including one in my apartment. In offices where there's often a lot of ambient light, dark mode is substantially harder to read due to the added glare. In offices with low ambient light, light mode becomes more likely to cause eye-strain. This can be compensated for to a certain degree by changing the brightness and contrast settings on the monitor, but it's not a complete panacea.
Of course, the whole discussion goes completely off the rails when you're talking about anything other than a monitor on a laptop or desktop computer. This is because different use-cases will dramatically bias the decision of which theme is best depending on how and where you use the device. For examples: Dark mode is MUCH harder to read when used with a projector, but it actually helps extend battery life on my phone. Dark mode is also less jarring on my smart TV when navigating in and out of videos and movies at night.
IMO, just use what you want to use, and don't worry too much about which theme saves you a few milliseconds of response time or reduces eye-strain by some infinitesimal amount. Nobody is going blind because of their choice of theme. Nobody is suddenly 10% faster at coding. "Dark mode vs. Light mode" is almost entirely an aesthetic choice.
I work for a business that does contract work, and I find myself working from a variety of offices, including one in my apartment. In offices where there's often a lot of ambient light, dark mode is substantially harder to read due to the added glare. In offices with low ambient light, light mode becomes more likely to cause eye-strain. This can be compensated for to a certain degree by changing the brightness and contrast settings on the monitor, but it's not a complete panacea.
Of course, the whole discussion goes completely off the rails when you're talking about anything other than a monitor on a laptop or desktop computer. This is because different use-cases will dramatically bias the decision of which theme is best depending on how and where you use the device. For examples: Dark mode is MUCH harder to read when used with a projector, but it actually helps extend battery life on my phone. Dark mode is also less jarring on my smart TV when navigating in and out of videos and movies at night.
IMO, just use what you want to use, and don't worry too much about which theme saves you a few milliseconds of response time or reduces eye-strain by some infinitesimal amount. Nobody is going blind because of their choice of theme. Nobody is suddenly 10% faster at coding. "Dark mode vs. Light mode" is almost entirely an aesthetic choice.
Anyone presenting (conference/projector) or screen recording for YouTube absolutely should not use dark mode if they want their content to be visible to the largest percentage of viewers.
Dark mode is inherently lower contrast, and most displays perform worse on dark content.
Plus, some of us like to be outside. With bright sunlit ambient light (not even necessarily direct), dark mode content is practically invisible (just a black screen).
Dark mode is inherently lower contrast, and most displays perform worse on dark content.
Plus, some of us like to be outside. With bright sunlit ambient light (not even necessarily direct), dark mode content is practically invisible (just a black screen).
Hahaha ... I teach software development for a living and the first thing we have to students when they start presenting their work is always “please switch to light mode”.
> A nice dark screen with light text is easier to read, right? Well, according to multiple studies, that’s wrong apparently.
That was really funny. "Do you like chocolate? Well, according to multiple studies, you don't apparently."
How can a study tell me what is comfortable for me? Are we going crazy? We are starting to treat studies like little gods which tell us what to do, and apparently, what to like.
That was really funny. "Do you like chocolate? Well, according to multiple studies, you don't apparently."
How can a study tell me what is comfortable for me? Are we going crazy? We are starting to treat studies like little gods which tell us what to do, and apparently, what to like.
It's kind of common for people to think that they like something while getting objectively worse results. For example, people learning sequentially feel like they've learned the materials but are outperformed by people who were forced to learn the topic out of sequence.
So I think conclusion such as "people think they prefer it, but actually, information retention is much higher with white background" is quite applicable despite you thinking that's not true.
So I think conclusion such as "people think they prefer it, but actually, information retention is much higher with white background" is quite applicable despite you thinking that's not true.
> How can a study tell me what is comfortable for me?
Unless you are an emigre from Betelgeuse or a particularly intelligent octopus, you have eyes that work in the same way as everyone else's eyes. The biology and physiology of the human eye are well understood. Chocolate is an excellent comparison. Whether you like chocolate is a matter of taste. But you don't get to claim that eating chocolate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner is optimal because you prefer it.
Unless you are an emigre from Betelgeuse or a particularly intelligent octopus, you have eyes that work in the same way as everyone else's eyes. The biology and physiology of the human eye are well understood. Chocolate is an excellent comparison. Whether you like chocolate is a matter of taste. But you don't get to claim that eating chocolate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner is optimal because you prefer it.
Today I learned that I'm a emigre from Betelgeuse or an octopus.
Seriously, eye doctors are always interested in how I am even able to see. Which I wasn't at some time, until that got fixed by a brilliant professor.
Seriously, eye doctors are always interested in how I am even able to see. Which I wasn't at some time, until that got fixed by a brilliant professor.
Despite that most of our bodies function more or less the same way, everybody has completely different tastes and preferences in many different things.
And when you add the human brain into any process you now have something much more complex and much less understood, with much more room for say, personal differences.
[deleted]
But something like “easier to read” is also relative. The brightness of a white background is hurtful for me and I dislike it.
So, despite the studies, for me white over black is easier to read. Maybe my performance is bad by using white over black. But it would be even worse with black over white, as I would spend all the time squinting at the screen.
So, despite the studies, for me white over black is easier to read. Maybe my performance is bad by using white over black. But it would be even worse with black over white, as I would spend all the time squinting at the screen.
This article is an experiment to see how easily hacker news people can be manipulated. "When I was in the military..." Yep, confirmed.
"Unless you’re using an OLED or AMOLED screen and your dark mode is truly black – not dark grey, not dark blue, BLACK. There is no difference in power consumption."
I thought this was a myth. I looked into it last year and found that power consumption was (roughly) proportional to brightness.
At a meta-level, I'm surprised that something with so factual (and testable) an answer can still not be settled.
I thought this was a myth. I looked into it last year and found that power consumption was (roughly) proportional to brightness.
At a meta-level, I'm surprised that something with so factual (and testable) an answer can still not be settled.
> At a meta-level, I'm surprised that something with so factual (and testable) an answer can still not be settled.
It is absolutely settled, and has been tested over and over again. Power is roughly proportional to the amount of light emitted[1], so having dark grey is absolutely a power savings over pure white.
Google slides: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/8/18076502/google-dark-mode... Display energy modeling: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002/stvr.1635
[1]: This isn't totally true mostly because the display is broken into RGB elements emitting light of differing efficiencies and human perception of the brightness of those elements is not identical.
It is absolutely settled, and has been tested over and over again. Power is roughly proportional to the amount of light emitted[1], so having dark grey is absolutely a power savings over pure white.
Google slides: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/8/18076502/google-dark-mode... Display energy modeling: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002/stvr.1635
[1]: This isn't totally true mostly because the display is broken into RGB elements emitting light of differing efficiencies and human perception of the brightness of those elements is not identical.
LCD screens are really cool! My dad had a half-broken one at some point, and we peeled the outer layer partly off. It was pure white underneath. Just constant white light, no matter what was being displayed.
But if you looked at the pure white with polarized sunglasses, you could see the image! The pixels don't turn on and off, they just change polarization. And there's a thin layer that blocks light of one polarization, but not the other.
EDIT: Wikipedia has a picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display#/media/...
But if you looked at the pure white with polarized sunglasses, you could see the image! The pixels don't turn on and off, they just change polarization. And there's a thin layer that blocks light of one polarization, but not the other.
EDIT: Wikipedia has a picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-crystal_display#/media/...
https://www.xda-developers.com/amoled-black-vs-gray-dark-mod...
According to this article there is a difference (between grey and black), but it is very small?
According to this article there is a difference (between grey and black), but it is very small?
Things have flip-flopped over the years:
CRT - Black didn't light up the pixels (I don't remember the details as to how), so it did reduce power usage some.
LCD - Had a constant backlight (see sibling comment for details), so there was little to no difference between black and anything else.
OLED/AMOLED - Black LEDs are actually turned off, instead of displaying a dark color, so we're back to it saving power - more even than CRTs did.
CRT - Black didn't light up the pixels (I don't remember the details as to how), so it did reduce power usage some.
LCD - Had a constant backlight (see sibling comment for details), so there was little to no difference between black and anything else.
OLED/AMOLED - Black LEDs are actually turned off, instead of displaying a dark color, so we're back to it saving power - more even than CRTs did.
> no difference between black and anything else.
Just a detail that isn't quite right in the article: black is actually the highest power state for LCDs. The backlight draws the same power all the time (for a given brightness setting) but the pixels draw more power when they are black.
Just a detail that isn't quite right in the article: black is actually the highest power state for LCDs. The backlight draws the same power all the time (for a given brightness setting) but the pixels draw more power when they are black.
Many monitors now have local array dimming to increase contrast. It's probably fair to assume that dimmed backleds lead to decrease power consumption.
Colour is orthogonal to brightness for LCD screens.
> When I was in the military, a key tactic of camouflage was to never, under any circumstances, expose yourself on a hilltop or similar, where your silhouette could be easily identified. A dark blob on a light background is far easier for the human eye to see, than the reverse.
I hate these obviously one sided arguments. Here they could have said to not use a flashlight while hiding in the dark. But they tactfully left that out.
I hate these obviously one sided arguments. Here they could have said to not use a flashlight while hiding in the dark. But they tactfully left that out.
Came here to say this and was glad someone beat me to it
>Is Dark Mode Such A Good Idea?
Yes.
>Many people quote light mode as being a contributory factor to eye strain. Based on the reading I’ve done, this doesn’t appear to be true.
I'll test that now.
- Blindy migraine mode: Hurts.
- Dark mode: Doesn't hurt.
- Different result ever? No.
The above is from the undisputed, worldwide expert on what I feel.
Yes.
>Many people quote light mode as being a contributory factor to eye strain. Based on the reading I’ve done, this doesn’t appear to be true.
I'll test that now.
- Blindy migraine mode: Hurts.
- Dark mode: Doesn't hurt.
- Different result ever? No.
The above is from the undisputed, worldwide expert on what I feel.
I'll test it as well:
- stupid dark mode: makes me cranky, gives me a headache - light mode: relaxed reading, makes me feel comfortable. - different results ever? No.
the above is from the undisputed, worldwide export on what I feel.
- stupid dark mode: makes me cranky, gives me a headache - light mode: relaxed reading, makes me feel comfortable. - different results ever? No.
the above is from the undisputed, worldwide export on what I feel.
Coming at this from a slightly different angle, I have recurrent headaches (present at some level most of the time, and severe for a few hours a most days). When I'm feeling OK, light mode and dark mode are basically equivalent - I _prefer_ light mode, but dark mode isn't a hindrance. When I have a severe headache, light mode is fine, whereas in dark mode I find myself losing my place often, and it's vaguely unpleasant to read in a somewhat undescribable way that just makes me want to look away. It's akin to the text being slightly blurred, even though visually it looks fine.
The only conclusion I can can draw from this is that it's going to differ for difference people, and options are good.
The only conclusion I can can draw from this is that it's going to differ for difference people, and options are good.
Maybe your monitor is set too bright? The white on the monitor should be roughly as bright as a sheet of white paper in the same room, less than 50% brightness usually.
You likely have your display's brightness set higher than it needs to because the dark mode pixels let less light into your eyes. Secondly, the initial dark-to-light switch is always jarring, and usually more jarring than switching from light to dark (which isn't always jarring, even). But that effect is temporary, and usually disappears by the next day.
“Is the sky really blue?”
Yes. I thought Dark Mode was some cool hipster shit until it shipped in iOS. I enabled it just to see what all the fuss was about. I love it and I'll never go back. For me the win is noticeably reduced eyestrain.
OTOH I know people who tried it and hated it. Just because I like it doesn't mean you have to like it. I think it's awesome to have choices.
OTOH I know people who tried it and hated it. Just because I like it doesn't mean you have to like it. I think it's awesome to have choices.
Part of the reason I like dark mode is because it looks "computery".
I grew with Hercules Monochrome monitors (green on black), and that's always been a comfortable color scheme for me.
In my Turbo Pascal days, I began to have an affinity for white text over blue backgrounds.
I believe it was during the days of Windows 3.0 (1990) was when white backgrounds became the norm, and we've been stuck with that for over 3 decades. Not even the early X Windows programs had white backgrounds -- Mosaic and Netscape had grey backgrounds and muted chrome.
I think dark backgrounds evoke nostalgia (at least among some of us).
I grew with Hercules Monochrome monitors (green on black), and that's always been a comfortable color scheme for me.
In my Turbo Pascal days, I began to have an affinity for white text over blue backgrounds.
I believe it was during the days of Windows 3.0 (1990) was when white backgrounds became the norm, and we've been stuck with that for over 3 decades. Not even the early X Windows programs had white backgrounds -- Mosaic and Netscape had grey backgrounds and muted chrome.
I think dark backgrounds evoke nostalgia (at least among some of us).
I recall Word having a “white text on blue” option for quite a while as comfort to the millions moving over from WordPerfect. Blue backgrounds and Borland themes definitely evoke nostalgia.
I'll never understand what happened about that time period. We went from the idea of "try minimize eye strain" to "fsck it! White looks great! Let's stare at light bulbs all day!". Grey backgrounds are a lot softer on the eyes.
I'm still running black text on light grey as my primary colour scheme for text editing since AmigaDOS 2.0 in the 90s. Seriously.
I'm still running black text on light grey as my primary colour scheme for text editing since AmigaDOS 2.0 in the 90s. Seriously.
Customize your device for your comfort. Even if there are studies that show on average humans retain information better reading in light mode. That's merely the average! Variation is the only certainty in biology. It's good we have options.
First I found I read my kindle more than physical books even though I prefer the look and feel of physical books. Then I found I read even more on my ipad with the kindle app showing white text on a black background.
Find what works for you. Or if you are a UX designer, provide options.
First I found I read my kindle more than physical books even though I prefer the look and feel of physical books. Then I found I read even more on my ipad with the kindle app showing white text on a black background.
Find what works for you. Or if you are a UX designer, provide options.
>Customize your device for your comfort.
I think the better advice is, customize your environment for your comfort.
Often the reason why people use dark mode is that they use their devices in badly lit environments. It's not a good idea to stare into a bright monitor in a dark room, and the dark mode is arguably the wrong fix for the problem. Reading in dimly lit rooms is known to cause headaches and eye strain and should generally be avoided.
If someone really needs to work in a dark environment tools like flux/redshift are a better solution.
I think the better advice is, customize your environment for your comfort.
Often the reason why people use dark mode is that they use their devices in badly lit environments. It's not a good idea to stare into a bright monitor in a dark room, and the dark mode is arguably the wrong fix for the problem. Reading in dimly lit rooms is known to cause headaches and eye strain and should generally be avoided.
If someone really needs to work in a dark environment tools like flux/redshift are a better solution.
While true, it'd be nice if they could meet in the middle. Laptops and phones autodim but I can't say I've seen this on desktop monitors. I see dark mode (not enough of it though), auto dark mode much more rarely. Lights that autodim are a thing but not common and usually part of the internet of shit.
I don't really want to customize things multiple times daily. And if I have to pick, it will be dark, because it's easier on the eyes when the sun goes down and I dim the lights in anticipation of going to bed.
I don't really want to customize things multiple times daily. And if I have to pick, it will be dark, because it's easier on the eyes when the sun goes down and I dim the lights in anticipation of going to bed.
> Laptops and phones autodim but I can't say I've seen this on desktop monitors.
Modern monitors do have this. Not sure for how many years, but the one I'm currently seated by is 3 years old and has auto dimming.
Modern monitors do have this. Not sure for how many years, but the one I'm currently seated by is 3 years old and has auto dimming.
> Reading in dimly lit rooms is known to cause headaches and eye strain and should generally be avoided.
If you’re reading something purely reflective like paper, sure. If you’re reading a screen that is shooting rays of light directly into your eyeballs though?
If you’re reading something purely reflective like paper, sure. If you’re reading a screen that is shooting rays of light directly into your eyeballs though?
IIRC:
Dimly lit room + brightly lit cube means that whenever your vision tracks outside of the cube it will have to adjust the opening of the iris. Doing this a lot will tire your eyes out. My interpretation of this is that we should try to have about the same light level across our work spaces and that this should be a mean between long term comfort and readability. I think most of us could probably benefit from larger font sizes as well which feel easier to read in lower light to me.
Dimly lit room + brightly lit cube means that whenever your vision tracks outside of the cube it will have to adjust the opening of the iris. Doing this a lot will tire your eyes out. My interpretation of this is that we should try to have about the same light level across our work spaces and that this should be a mean between long term comfort and readability. I think most of us could probably benefit from larger font sizes as well which feel easier to read in lower light to me.
My environment isn't "badly lit". I just don't want bright, flickering light blasted into my eyes at my expense.
I even block natural light using sunglasses when I go outside!
Once upon a time I stared at the Sun for a solid 20 seconds without blinking. I couldn't read text for a month, the letters disappeared from under my center vision. Why in God's name would I want to routinely stare at a bright screen?
I even block natural light using sunglasses when I go outside!
Once upon a time I stared at the Sun for a solid 20 seconds without blinking. I couldn't read text for a month, the letters disappeared from under my center vision. Why in God's name would I want to routinely stare at a bright screen?
I've always had that same theory -- I generally prefer light mode to dark mode, and I've also always preferred working in well-lit rooms.
Personally I appreciate the ability to switch color modes.
I've found that when reading articles or text I like dark text on a white background. So news apps are kept in light mode.
For development i like that darker themes allows me to see the syntax highlighting better. Plus my partner loves the "rainbow text" and knows when I'm working "matrix time" :)
I've found that when reading articles or text I like dark text on a white background. So news apps are kept in light mode.
For development i like that darker themes allows me to see the syntax highlighting better. Plus my partner loves the "rainbow text" and knows when I'm working "matrix time" :)
> my partner loves the "rainbow text" and knows when I'm working "matrix time" :)
I love this. My wife calls it "the black screens"
I love this. My wife calls it "the black screens"
I've found that when reading articles or text I like dark text on a white background. So news apps are kept in light mode.
Same, but a problem nowadays is that if you have your OS in dark mode, some site designers detect this and serve you up dark CSS :-(
Same, but a problem nowadays is that if you have your OS in dark mode, some site designers detect this and serve you up dark CSS :-(
Same for me. For reading articles, give me black text on black background please. For code editor, issue tracker, terminal it’s always dark mode
Also from the linked Nielson Norman Group article:
> On the flip side, long-term reading in light mode may be associated with myopia.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
> On the flip side, long-term reading in light mode may be associated with myopia.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
I like dark mode on my phone, because when I want to read at night (i.e. in bed) even on the lowest settings the screen feels too bright on light mode. On my computer though I don't really care, I never use it in a completely dark rom, so at night I just dim the display and have the colour temperature shift.
Some phones allow you to go darker than the lowest setting using an accessibility filter. On iOS, you can do this with the Zoom feature (set to 0% zoom and with a dark filter layered on top). I don't know why they don't just offer the filter without having to go through the unintuitive Zoom setting, and I only happened to learn of this feature because I talked to an Apple employee who works on accessibility.
I now use this as my triple-click functionality since it is more universal than inverting colors (which can cause issues on some websites, with photos, etc.).
I now use this as my triple-click functionality since it is more universal than inverting colors (which can cause issues on some websites, with photos, etc.).
> A better remedy for eye strain would be to enable night light on your operating system, which will reduce the your screen’s blue light output.
When I got my current Android phone (a year and a half ago), I was so confused as to why my screen got a blue hue at night. After finding out what it was, I figure it would be good to leave on, and I even set it up on my Ubuntu machine. Holy cow do I depend on it now. If I look at a screen late in the day without a blue light filter, I notice a serious difference. I don't know if I've just gotten used to the blue light filter, or if it really is helpful, but I've become a dedicated fan.
When I got my current Android phone (a year and a half ago), I was so confused as to why my screen got a blue hue at night. After finding out what it was, I figure it would be good to leave on, and I even set it up on my Ubuntu machine. Holy cow do I depend on it now. If I look at a screen late in the day without a blue light filter, I notice a serious difference. I don't know if I've just gotten used to the blue light filter, or if it really is helpful, but I've become a dedicated fan.
I also have it enabled on my phone and laptops constantly. I also turn down the brightness quite a bit. It always looks wrong for the first few moments, and then it looks perfectly normal. Just like wearing tinted glasses.
I'm a light mode user. I don't like dark mode for my work. But I also don't imposed on anyone. Everybody's free to use what they consider best for their eyes/work. It's the same as what shortcuts/icons to keep at hand on desktop/quickLaunch, it's a personal preference.
So when I hear some fanboy about dark mode this and dark mode that I roll my eyes and try to ignore it until shoves it in my eyes with his "I know better" attitude. At which point I kindly remind him that I don't go in his house and rearrange furniture to my liking and better change the subject
So when I hear some fanboy about dark mode this and dark mode that I roll my eyes and try to ignore it until shoves it in my eyes with his "I know better" attitude. At which point I kindly remind him that I don't go in his house and rearrange furniture to my liking and better change the subject
Rather than argue against dark mode because it's bad for your eyes, I'd prefer to focus on how it's hard to do well with user generated content.
Let's say you users draw diagrams with SVG and the background defaults to white. You make a dark mode. You can't easily fix the SVG. You can't just set the background to black. The SVG's dark colors won't be readable. You can't just set the dark colors to light colors as you have no idea what the diagram is trying to show. The best you can do is set all images to have a white background so any image with transparency is shown in the default but then you end up with large white rectangles on an otherwise dark page which is jarring.
I actually mostly like dark mode. My editors have used dark colors since the 80s. My terminal has been set to a dark color for as long as I can remember on any OS. But, maybe because of bad color choices, I can't focus on stackoverflow's dark mode at all. Maybe it's the blue on dark gray they picked. I don't know what it is but I can't read it.
Let's say you users draw diagrams with SVG and the background defaults to white. You make a dark mode. You can't easily fix the SVG. You can't just set the background to black. The SVG's dark colors won't be readable. You can't just set the dark colors to light colors as you have no idea what the diagram is trying to show. The best you can do is set all images to have a white background so any image with transparency is shown in the default but then you end up with large white rectangles on an otherwise dark page which is jarring.
I actually mostly like dark mode. My editors have used dark colors since the 80s. My terminal has been set to a dark color for as long as I can remember on any OS. But, maybe because of bad color choices, I can't focus on stackoverflow's dark mode at all. Maybe it's the blue on dark gray they picked. I don't know what it is but I can't read it.
I switched after years of dark mode as well, just a few days ago. The initial reason that it is very hard to get a consistent nice dark-mode experience across applications; think for example pdfs (which look ugly w/ inverted colors), or screen flickering during load times of programs, non optimized websites, video content, et cetera.
solarized light, redshift and just turn screen brightness down and it actually still looks ugly to me, but regarding eye strain, having proper syntax highlighting, and being less annoyed about the things mentioned above, it is fine and I might stick to this setup; once you are focusing you don't notice the ugliness.
https://i.imgur.com/xakys4y.png
reminded me of ACME, so I guess rob was just spot on way back https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Acme.png
solarized light, redshift and just turn screen brightness down and it actually still looks ugly to me, but regarding eye strain, having proper syntax highlighting, and being less annoyed about the things mentioned above, it is fine and I might stick to this setup; once you are focusing you don't notice the ugliness.
https://i.imgur.com/xakys4y.png
reminded me of ACME, so I guess rob was just spot on way back https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Acme.png
s/ACME/Acme (noprocrast setting hit me, can't edit anymore)
But what what I wanted to say: I changed my i3 colors to solarized light (vim status bar as well), can have a look here: https://i.imgur.com/B4EaE4l.png
But what what I wanted to say: I changed my i3 colors to solarized light (vim status bar as well), can have a look here: https://i.imgur.com/B4EaE4l.png
I think that they should mostly avoid CSS when needed, and then it should use the default colours configured by the user. But when they need to specify colours in their document, then they should specify all of them (specifying only some colours and not others causes problems) and use the "prefers-color-scheme" command to implement it. It is then the user's job if they like dark mode or not. If you do not like dark mode, then do not enable it in your web browser.
This is a relatively new CSS property I hadn't heard of yet.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref...
Even dark grey helps save battery on AMOLED displays: https://www.xda-developers.com/amoled-black-vs-gray-dark-mod...
Also, there's been conflicting research if blue light is actually harmful
Also, there's been conflicting research if blue light is actually harmful
I’m not a computer algorithm. I like what I like, and dark mode makes me like being on my computer when I have to be.
A lot of visual professional apps tend to be color neutral so you don't bias your work. Whether for trendiness or for functional reasons they also all tend to use darker colors for their UI. This seems to extend to audio apps, too. For color-accurate work ambient light is lowered (windows are covered and walls tend to be painted neutral). Even Photoshop transitioned to a darker-and-darker UI between CS4-CS6 (~2015).
It's really jarring when spending hours inside these apps and jump to a file browser or web browser and get blasted with light.
It's really jarring when spending hours inside these apps and jump to a file browser or web browser and get blasted with light.
I get pretty bad "burn-in" effects after reading text in dark mode and then looking away from the screen or at a light-mode site. The lines of texts then form a stripe pattern that's overlaid on everything that I see. Lasts about 1-2 minutes. Needless to say, I avoid dark mode in my job and I loathe websites that force it on me.
The effect is worse the higher the contrast between dark background and bright text and the longer I've been reading. Anyone else have this problem?
The effect is worse the higher the contrast between dark background and bright text and the longer I've been reading. Anyone else have this problem?
Exactly the same for me. I find it so uncomfortable that I won't use any darkmode interface and pretty much always shun darkmode web pages.
My worst experience was with jsFiddle. They switched to darkmode only, which ended my use of the site for a long time. I just recently found this GreaseMonkey script https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/403402-jsfiddle-light-them... that puts jsFiddle back to light mode.
My worst experience was with jsFiddle. They switched to darkmode only, which ended my use of the site for a long time. I just recently found this GreaseMonkey script https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/403402-jsfiddle-light-them... that puts jsFiddle back to light mode.
I don't like Dark Mode. I even set my terminal emulator to white background with black text.
I'm the same. I think because I'm more concerned about the surrounding lighting and making sure the brightness of my monitor is appropriate for that. Once that's done, light mode has greater readability for me than dark mode.
I've tried dark mode a few times in the past because I felt like that's what you should use to code. But I simply don't like looking directly at bright text.
I've tried dark mode a few times in the past because I felt like that's what you should use to code. But I simply don't like looking directly at bright text.
My eyes are too sensitive to light. It really hurts. I have to dim the monitors light down to zero. Now almost every website on the net show text with pale-gray color on white background for whatever the sick reason. Some people must be batshit crazy to make text light-gray and also semi-transparent. I can't flippin' read. So http://darkreader.org does a great job for me.
Recall "Reading and Myopia: Contrast Polarity Matters" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20207577
In myopia the eye grows too long, generating poorly focused retinal images when people try to look at a distance. Myopia is tightly linked to the educational status and is on the rise worldwide. It is still not clear which kind of visual experience stimulates eye growth in children and students when they study. We propose a new and perhaps unexpected reason. Work in animal models has shown that selective activation of ON or OFF pathways has also selective effects on eye growth. This is likely to be true also in humans. Using custom-developed software to process video frames of the visual environment in realtime we quantified relative ON and OFF stimulus strengths. We found that ON and OFF inputs were largely balanced in natural environments. However, black text on white paper heavily overstimulated retinal OFF pathways. Conversely, white text on black paper overstimulated ON pathways. Using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in young human subjects, we found that the choroid, the heavily perfused layer behind the retina in the eye, becomes about 16 µm thinner in only one hour when subjects read black text on white background but about 10 µm thicker when they read white text from black background. Studies both in animal models and in humans have shown that thinner choroids are associated with myopia development and thicker choroids with myopia inhibition. Therefore, reading white text from a black screen or tablet may be a way to inhibit myopia, while conventional black text on white background may stimulate myopia.
In myopia the eye grows too long, generating poorly focused retinal images when people try to look at a distance. Myopia is tightly linked to the educational status and is on the rise worldwide. It is still not clear which kind of visual experience stimulates eye growth in children and students when they study. We propose a new and perhaps unexpected reason. Work in animal models has shown that selective activation of ON or OFF pathways has also selective effects on eye growth. This is likely to be true also in humans. Using custom-developed software to process video frames of the visual environment in realtime we quantified relative ON and OFF stimulus strengths. We found that ON and OFF inputs were largely balanced in natural environments. However, black text on white paper heavily overstimulated retinal OFF pathways. Conversely, white text on black paper overstimulated ON pathways. Using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in young human subjects, we found that the choroid, the heavily perfused layer behind the retina in the eye, becomes about 16 µm thinner in only one hour when subjects read black text on white background but about 10 µm thicker when they read white text from black background. Studies both in animal models and in humans have shown that thinner choroids are associated with myopia development and thicker choroids with myopia inhibition. Therefore, reading white text from a black screen or tablet may be a way to inhibit myopia, while conventional black text on white background may stimulate myopia.
I'm not really convinced by these arguments. I admit, I'm a light-mode user, and I was happy with the switch from white (or often amber)-on-black DOS screens of the 1980s to black-on-white of the XWindows terminal windows of the 1990s, but that doesn't make the argument that black-on-white is always better true.
Most importantly: paper doesn't emit light. Now that I'm behind a massive QHD screen, that thing is shining a lot of light in my face. Even more than the 20" Unix Workstations I used in university. I actually like it a bit darker than all this light. In fact, when a site has a transparent dark layer over its text because it wants me to respond to a popup first, I often prefer to read through that darker overlay. Screens are often too bright.
The primary reason I'm using light mode, is that it's the default everywhere and I'm used to it. Youtube in dark mode is confusing, but Discord in dark mode is fine. I haven't tried most websites in dark mode.
My phone and my laptop actually do have AMOLED screens, so dark mode would save power in my case. Just not on the big screen I'm currently using.
Most importantly: paper doesn't emit light. Now that I'm behind a massive QHD screen, that thing is shining a lot of light in my face. Even more than the 20" Unix Workstations I used in university. I actually like it a bit darker than all this light. In fact, when a site has a transparent dark layer over its text because it wants me to respond to a popup first, I often prefer to read through that darker overlay. Screens are often too bright.
The primary reason I'm using light mode, is that it's the default everywhere and I'm used to it. Youtube in dark mode is confusing, but Discord in dark mode is fine. I haven't tried most websites in dark mode.
My phone and my laptop actually do have AMOLED screens, so dark mode would save power in my case. Just not on the big screen I'm currently using.
Anecdotally, I've always preferred light mode. Specially for coding. First thing I do on a fresh OS install is to change the terminal to white background with black text. I definitely feel more eye strain on dark UIs.
I don't understand those who prefer Dark mode, but hey, if that's what you like, and it works for you, I'm all for having that choice on every program. Not all eyes are equal.
Although I read somewhere that weather Dark or Light background is better depends a lot on your environment. If you are in a very bright environment, next to big windows or intense artificial light, then Light is better. If you are in a darker environment then Dark is better. This matches my experience.
What I think it's definitely bad is constantly switching between Dark and Light. If I do that I get a headache very quickly. This makes Dark specially bad for me because even if I code in a Dark IDE, if I switch to the browser, the majority of websites use Light mode. And this switch causes me pain.
I don't understand those who prefer Dark mode, but hey, if that's what you like, and it works for you, I'm all for having that choice on every program. Not all eyes are equal.
Although I read somewhere that weather Dark or Light background is better depends a lot on your environment. If you are in a very bright environment, next to big windows or intense artificial light, then Light is better. If you are in a darker environment then Dark is better. This matches my experience.
What I think it's definitely bad is constantly switching between Dark and Light. If I do that I get a headache very quickly. This makes Dark specially bad for me because even if I code in a Dark IDE, if I switch to the browser, the majority of websites use Light mode. And this switch causes me pain.
After reading this article from Nielsen about the size of usability studies [1] their research credibility has gone down for me. According to the article, no matter the size of a user base:
"... the answer is simple: test 5 users in a usability study. Testing with 5 people lets you find almost as many usability problems as you'd find using many more test participants."
Oh wait, but my site has millions of users!
"Doesn't matter for the sample size, even if you were doing statistics."
Even if you were doing statistics? What does it even mean lol... it just sounds to me they want to justify whatever "studies" they've have in their library. I'd say, unless a Nielsen study is replicated and double checked, probably (pun intended :-p) their studies shouldn't be taken very seriously.
1: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/
"... the answer is simple: test 5 users in a usability study. Testing with 5 people lets you find almost as many usability problems as you'd find using many more test participants."
Oh wait, but my site has millions of users!
"Doesn't matter for the sample size, even if you were doing statistics."
Even if you were doing statistics? What does it even mean lol... it just sounds to me they want to justify whatever "studies" they've have in their library. I'd say, unless a Nielsen study is replicated and double checked, probably (pun intended :-p) their studies shouldn't be taken very seriously.
1: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/
The point the article you're quoting is making is that if you insist on a single number then 5 is enough if your question falls in a specific category. Namely, for the purpose of finding the number of people needed to get the biggest payoff in terms of number of usability problems identified.
This being the key point they're making:
> The main argument for small tests is simply return on investment: testing costs increase with each additional study participant, yet the number of findings quickly reaches the point of diminishing returns. There's little additional benefit to running more than 5 people through the same study; ROI drops like a stone with a bigger N.
This doesn't quantify the scale of the reported problems. It goes into it with the assumption that you simply want to find as many of the problems with your site as possible.
> Even if you were doing statistics?
The sentence you quoted regarding this makes the point that the number of users the site has is not the factor that should drive the size of your panel (you'll note that elsewhere the article argues that where you need statistically significant results you need at least 20 users and more if you need tight confidence intervals). Rather the size of your panel should be determined by your required confidence intervals, and when identifying usability issues is your main concern they don't need to be tight.
This being the key point they're making:
> The main argument for small tests is simply return on investment: testing costs increase with each additional study participant, yet the number of findings quickly reaches the point of diminishing returns. There's little additional benefit to running more than 5 people through the same study; ROI drops like a stone with a bigger N.
This doesn't quantify the scale of the reported problems. It goes into it with the assumption that you simply want to find as many of the problems with your site as possible.
> Even if you were doing statistics?
The sentence you quoted regarding this makes the point that the number of users the site has is not the factor that should drive the size of your panel (you'll note that elsewhere the article argues that where you need statistically significant results you need at least 20 users and more if you need tight confidence intervals). Rather the size of your panel should be determined by your required confidence intervals, and when identifying usability issues is your main concern they don't need to be tight.
I prefer light mode, but I get why people like dark. I think the problem with light mode is that the default approach is black on white. Dark mode almost always has lower contrast between foreground and background.
Back when users were still allowed to make decisions, I usually changed the background in Windows text controls from white to a light, warm gray.
Back when users were still allowed to make decisions, I usually changed the background in Windows text controls from white to a light, warm gray.
I remember reading an article years ago which explained that the reason people get eyestrain from a white background is that the monitor's brightness is set way too high. With high brightness, the monitor acts as a light shining directly at you all day. Instead, you want it to be more like paper- low light emission but still readable due to contrast. At the time, I was using dark mode heavily, but I was still having bad eye strain. I tried lowering the brightness of the monitor, and the problem went away. Since then, I've only used light mode with a low brightness setting of 30 out of 100.
I encourage people to experiment with it. Note, if you are not used to low brightness, the monitor will look incredibly dim. But your eyes will adjust quickly- mine only took a few minutes.
I don’t like dark mode because of my color blindness. You often get text in dark colors that are hard to see.
One thing I know is pretty well-researched about light, is that our brains produce dopamine in response to optic-nerve signals hitting our https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprachiasmatic_nucleus. This response is what causes circadian entrainment, but it also just has the same effect as any other dopaminergic agonism in the brain: increasing motivational arousal. This is why light-therapy lamps warn you not to use them for more than 30 minutes at a time: the excess dopamine produced by your SCN will put you into a state of mania.
Up to a point, people work better with more dopamine in their brains. (Many people have subclinical/undiagnosed ADHD, and work especially better with more dopamine in their brains.) One way to make people's brains produce more dopamine is to make them stare directly into bright light sources. Therefore, light-mode is very likely to be observed as "more productive" for anyone who's not already saturating their dopamine receptors by other means (drugs et al.)
-----
Fun tangent that I like to bring up, because few people seem to have heard of it:
This dopamine agonism in the SCN also increases muscle tone in muscles with nerve connections afferent to the SCN, e.g. the orbital muscles of the eye (chemical "feedback" through the optic nerve, essentially.)
The current hypothesis for the development of myopia (nearsightedness) is that the eye's orbital muscles must receive a certain amount of dopamine during the development/growth of the skull to keep the eye pressed into the right shape relative to the ocular orbit. In people who don't get enough bright-light exposure to consistently trigger dopamine release from the SCN, their orbital muscles remain slack, allowing their eye to "relax" wider into the orbit, leading to the retina growing into position further away from the cornea, and thus leading to myopia.
This means that children don't get nearsighted from doing "close work" all day; but they do become nearsighted from staying inside all day, where they aren't getting enough SCN stimulation from the lower indoor light levels. The likely "fix" for the epidemic of nearsightedness is to get kids to do even sedentary activities outside. (And for people who live in places where it's cloudy/raining most of the year, to get indoor lighting equivalent in light output to a light-therapy lamp.)
Up to a point, people work better with more dopamine in their brains. (Many people have subclinical/undiagnosed ADHD, and work especially better with more dopamine in their brains.) One way to make people's brains produce more dopamine is to make them stare directly into bright light sources. Therefore, light-mode is very likely to be observed as "more productive" for anyone who's not already saturating their dopamine receptors by other means (drugs et al.)
-----
Fun tangent that I like to bring up, because few people seem to have heard of it:
This dopamine agonism in the SCN also increases muscle tone in muscles with nerve connections afferent to the SCN, e.g. the orbital muscles of the eye (chemical "feedback" through the optic nerve, essentially.)
The current hypothesis for the development of myopia (nearsightedness) is that the eye's orbital muscles must receive a certain amount of dopamine during the development/growth of the skull to keep the eye pressed into the right shape relative to the ocular orbit. In people who don't get enough bright-light exposure to consistently trigger dopamine release from the SCN, their orbital muscles remain slack, allowing their eye to "relax" wider into the orbit, leading to the retina growing into position further away from the cornea, and thus leading to myopia.
This means that children don't get nearsighted from doing "close work" all day; but they do become nearsighted from staying inside all day, where they aren't getting enough SCN stimulation from the lower indoor light levels. The likely "fix" for the epidemic of nearsightedness is to get kids to do even sedentary activities outside. (And for people who live in places where it's cloudy/raining most of the year, to get indoor lighting equivalent in light output to a light-therapy lamp.)
A lot of your points look suspect to me, could you link to some studies? While light surely ought to affect dopamine levels[0] isn't this in both senses secondary to - downstream from, the main melatonin/cortisol cycle driving our circadian rhythms? Your linked wiki article contains zero mentions of dopamine.
If 30 minute+ light-therapy made you manic so would working a field in summer, a hundred times over. Outside of drugs and illness there is little one can do to escape even short-term homeostasis. Nothing is linear and everything has feedback limiting it.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819153/#!po=50...
If 30 minute+ light-therapy made you manic so would working a field in summer, a hundred times over. Outside of drugs and illness there is little one can do to escape even short-term homeostasis. Nothing is linear and everything has feedback limiting it.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819153/#!po=50...
Why is dark mode treated as something new since around a year or so?
Look at 70's terminals and 80's DOS computers. Notice how they are green on black, light gray on black or amber on black: dark mode.
Look at code editors from the 90s or early 2000s. They allowed choosing color schemes, many of which were light text on dark background.
Look at websites from the 90s and mid 2000s: there was still some diversity in design back then, some allowed switching CSS color schemes by the user.
Look at Windows 3.11, Windows 98, XP, etc...: allowed changing all the colors of everything (no clue how the situation in Windows 10 is).
Android also has been having white text on black in various iterations of early to recent versions, especially for OLED screens.
Etc...
Look at 70's terminals and 80's DOS computers. Notice how they are green on black, light gray on black or amber on black: dark mode.
Look at code editors from the 90s or early 2000s. They allowed choosing color schemes, many of which were light text on dark background.
Look at websites from the 90s and mid 2000s: there was still some diversity in design back then, some allowed switching CSS color schemes by the user.
Look at Windows 3.11, Windows 98, XP, etc...: allowed changing all the colors of everything (no clue how the situation in Windows 10 is).
Android also has been having white text on black in various iterations of early to recent versions, especially for OLED screens.
Etc...
One annoying thing I've noticed is that a low brightness setting on the iPhone screen makes a big difference with light vs. dark mode.
For example, at night, sitting in a low-lit living room, I can set the brightness to 20% and comfortably read articles where the text is black on a white background. But if I then switch to a "dark mode" app that has white text on a black/gray background, I need to bump the brightness up to 30-40% for it to be comfortable.
I'm not sure what the solution is, or even what the "scientific" explanation is. Isn't the contrast exactly the same?
Surely this is not an uncommon problem?
For example, at night, sitting in a low-lit living room, I can set the brightness to 20% and comfortably read articles where the text is black on a white background. But if I then switch to a "dark mode" app that has white text on a black/gray background, I need to bump the brightness up to 30-40% for it to be comfortable.
I'm not sure what the solution is, or even what the "scientific" explanation is. Isn't the contrast exactly the same?
Surely this is not an uncommon problem?
I am not trying to convince the author of this post, but I'd like to speak to other web developers here: yes, please offer a dark mode!
When I want to do some light reading in bed at night (I do have a blue light filter on for that), I will often abandon even trying to read pages with white backgrounds because it is quite uncomfortable.
I do not care if scientifically I read three words less per minute, this is about perception. A dark mode option on a site shows me the developer cares to cover my use case and makes me more likely to go back.
If you need to do a light theme only, then just the HN reddish-tint on the background helps me a lot.
When I want to do some light reading in bed at night (I do have a blue light filter on for that), I will often abandon even trying to read pages with white backgrounds because it is quite uncomfortable.
I do not care if scientifically I read three words less per minute, this is about perception. A dark mode option on a site shows me the developer cares to cover my use case and makes me more likely to go back.
If you need to do a light theme only, then just the HN reddish-tint on the background helps me a lot.
This is kinda clickbait - all of the research mentioned was not 'research' at all - all the articles mentioned by the OP as "studies" (apart from the battery section) were from NN, or Nielson Norman Group, which were opinion articles by authors employed at that company lightly referencing a few studies. It's all highly subjective and opinionated at best, and "ain’t all that" is about the best we can say on this subject to date. Research doesn't suggest much at all, except you save battery with dark mode on OLED screens, that at least is conclusive.
Or also the British Medical Journal which is not opinions and is widely respected.
"Dark Mode" needs to be implemented on the hardware side, not the software side.
At the end of the day the idea is to minimize brightness to:
-Save energy -Reduce Eye Strain -Reduce blue light emission
However, there is lots of research suggesting, that Dark Mode is more of a placebo than it actually works. There is already a set of new display technologies being developed that have the benefits of "Dark Mode" without the need of extra software, namley E-Paper technology and RLCD. Those are having several advantages over "old" Display technologies: https://imgur.com/a/oPhIu6A
Dark mode, blue light blocking glasses, etc. are just part of a bigger trend nameley the shrinking backlight industry in the display industry.
There are some intersting players developing backlight free screens already and in 5-10 years it will be the standard. Also in terms of screen economics, not even mentioning the material and energy savings.
The thing is, that our body/eye has been trained for thousands of years to work with reflective light (to see things/objects through the light reflection of the sun). The screen trend to look directly into backlight over the past decades is very unnatural to our body/vision and caused many problems. We need a screen technology that is very aligned with on how our body is designed and works.
Big players in the display market are realizing this and building alternatives. Big players include Sharp, Lenovo, BOE Technologies, JDI, Flex Lightning, Hisense, ONYX, Dasung etc.
You can read about screen alternatives (like eink and rlcd) here: https://www.reddit.com/r/eink/comments/h179j5/new_eink_alter...
PS: There was recently aready a Tablet released with the new RLCD screen technolgoy by BOE-Technologies, check here: https://boingboing.net/2020/06/11/tablet-with-high-refresh-r...
At the end of the day the idea is to minimize brightness to:
-Save energy -Reduce Eye Strain -Reduce blue light emission
However, there is lots of research suggesting, that Dark Mode is more of a placebo than it actually works. There is already a set of new display technologies being developed that have the benefits of "Dark Mode" without the need of extra software, namley E-Paper technology and RLCD. Those are having several advantages over "old" Display technologies: https://imgur.com/a/oPhIu6A
Dark mode, blue light blocking glasses, etc. are just part of a bigger trend nameley the shrinking backlight industry in the display industry.
There are some intersting players developing backlight free screens already and in 5-10 years it will be the standard. Also in terms of screen economics, not even mentioning the material and energy savings.
The thing is, that our body/eye has been trained for thousands of years to work with reflective light (to see things/objects through the light reflection of the sun). The screen trend to look directly into backlight over the past decades is very unnatural to our body/vision and caused many problems. We need a screen technology that is very aligned with on how our body is designed and works.
Big players in the display market are realizing this and building alternatives. Big players include Sharp, Lenovo, BOE Technologies, JDI, Flex Lightning, Hisense, ONYX, Dasung etc.
You can read about screen alternatives (like eink and rlcd) here: https://www.reddit.com/r/eink/comments/h179j5/new_eink_alter...
PS: There was recently aready a Tablet released with the new RLCD screen technolgoy by BOE-Technologies, check here: https://boingboing.net/2020/06/11/tablet-with-high-refresh-r...
We have centuries of printing experience saying black text on white background is what works best.
Personally I like dark mode for macOS/iOS windows, menus etc... but light mode inside apps / on websites for reading text such as blogs, ebooks and emails.
I also use light mode on a Mac, as I hate the reflections in dark mode. If there's a nonreflective display though, it's dark mode all the way.
Kind of the epitome of bike-sheddding. Way too much importance attached to this on both sides. Want to do something good for your eyes and battery? Turn off the computer and go get an outdoor job like forestry. Yeah I didn't think so. So in that case, my expert advice is for you to use whatever mode you like, and don't worry about what's best. Not everything can, needs to be, or even should be, optimized.
> Not everything can, needs to be, or even should be, optimized.
Anything you do for thousands of hours yearly should definitely be optimized.
Anything you do for thousands of hours yearly should definitely be optimized.
The blog post links an article by a usability research group: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/
That article mentions a study suggesting that light-mode screen viewing can contribute to myopia. I was very surprised by this. The study is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
I also found a few things that make me want to consider the findings seriously. The authors are well-known; Schaeffer (corresponding) has an h-index of 50. The study is also cited by a review on myopia from 2019, which notes (original study is [112]):
>A recent hypothesis is that the problem may be associated with the predominant use of black text on white background [112]. This hypothesis proposes that the problem lies in the balance of stimulation of ON and OFF visual pathways, with natural scenes leading to balanced stimulation, with black text on white heavily overstimulating OFF pathways. Given that ON-bipolar pathways stimulate release of dopamine from amacrine cells [113], and dopamine agonists can inhibit axial elongation in animal models [114, 115], this is a promising link.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8491-2_...
Ironically, I think I'll be switching devices to dark mode a lot more having found this blog post. But as with any new scientific hypothesis, this one will probably evolve over the coming years.
That article mentions a study suggesting that light-mode screen viewing can contribute to myopia. I was very surprised by this. The study is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
I also found a few things that make me want to consider the findings seriously. The authors are well-known; Schaeffer (corresponding) has an h-index of 50. The study is also cited by a review on myopia from 2019, which notes (original study is [112]):
>A recent hypothesis is that the problem may be associated with the predominant use of black text on white background [112]. This hypothesis proposes that the problem lies in the balance of stimulation of ON and OFF visual pathways, with natural scenes leading to balanced stimulation, with black text on white heavily overstimulating OFF pathways. Given that ON-bipolar pathways stimulate release of dopamine from amacrine cells [113], and dopamine agonists can inhibit axial elongation in animal models [114, 115], this is a promising link.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-8491-2_...
Ironically, I think I'll be switching devices to dark mode a lot more having found this blog post. But as with any new scientific hypothesis, this one will probably evolve over the coming years.
After all this time, people still don't get we're all different. I have astigmatism, and therefore struggle more than normal when focussing on low contrast images.
White over black is terrible contrast. Black over white is the best contrast (the whole reason it became the norm).
I turn light themes everywhere and the difference to my eyes is tremendous -- especially when leaving screens for the day (no blurry vision).
White over black is terrible contrast. Black over white is the best contrast (the whole reason it became the norm).
I turn light themes everywhere and the difference to my eyes is tremendous -- especially when leaving screens for the day (no blurry vision).
I love dark mode for my UI chrome, etc, but hate it for documents and emails. Sadly having dark mode enabled on my Mac seems to make site designers think I also want the Web to look like an adult site. I've heard there's a way to force Chrome to override this feature but I haven't got round to trying it yet as it's only a handful of sites that do it (so far).
> When I was in the military, a key tactic of camouflage was to never, under any circumstances, expose yourself on a hilltop or similar, where your silhouette could be easily identified. A dark blob on a light background is far easier for the human eye to see, than the reverse.
This is absurd. You know what's EASIEST to see? A shining light bulb against a background of darkness.
I am skeptical about this suggestion of evolutionary reasons to explain computer screen settings. Obviously any vision task is influenced by our evolutionary history, but we did not evolve to read text at all.
Independent of that, there are at least two parameters that I can control, usually much more easily than light/dark. I can adjust text size, per application, and I can adjust screen brightness, per machine. These things allow fine control of 1) ease of reading, 2) total light output. Any study that considers the binary light/dark setting and ignores anything more fine-grained is completely missing the point.
This is absurd. You know what's EASIEST to see? A shining light bulb against a background of darkness.
I am skeptical about this suggestion of evolutionary reasons to explain computer screen settings. Obviously any vision task is influenced by our evolutionary history, but we did not evolve to read text at all.
Independent of that, there are at least two parameters that I can control, usually much more easily than light/dark. I can adjust text size, per application, and I can adjust screen brightness, per machine. These things allow fine control of 1) ease of reading, 2) total light output. Any study that considers the binary light/dark setting and ignores anything more fine-grained is completely missing the point.
I adore dark mode - it’s a must have for me. I’m sure the author is correct about fatigue but I use dark mode because I like it.
If you have eye floaters, dark mode is a life saver. The dark spots from floaters can be maddening against a white background
If you see the floaters then your screen is way to bright. I see my floaters only when looking at the sky during the day and I have lots of them. I think this is because the pupil contracts and the depth of field grows and the floaters project onto the retina
I can see mine even on minimum brightness... I just happen to have a couple of pretty dense, yet small, ones.
It's hard to compare the floaters, I think I have many when I look at a bright lit sky but you may as well have/see/perceive way more. Gotta add that I am not wearing any glasses but my eyes (blue) have always been super sensitive to light, I'm one of those squinter when I forget my sunglasses. I find that cloudy days affect me as much as sunny days if not even more since the light is not coming from one direction I could avoid, it seems like it's coming from everywhere.
I think the popularity of dark mode is at least partially because people's monitors set way too bright.
It is possible, but it is also about preference and the need to occasionally make change. Sometimes it feels cool to have a different environment. I used to enjoy tinkering with this kind of stuff a while ago. Now not so much, I try to go with defaults or minimum changes.
I've never thought that "dark mode" is better for readability or eye strain. It only comes down to preference. And it's a bit weird to quote a load of research to tell people whether or not they prefer one or the other.
The point of research like this is to show what should be the default. The default should definitely still be black on white. Dark mode should only be an option.
For me dark mode completely misses the point when it comes to eye strain anyway. For more than ten years now I've been using a low contrast colour scheme. It happens to be light on dark, but it's far from white on black (it's called Zenburn). I use this for emacs as well as terminals, which is where 90% of my work is done. I use "dark mode" plugins for Firefox simply because it reduces the contrast between the web and my work
The point of research like this is to show what should be the default. The default should definitely still be black on white. Dark mode should only be an option.
For me dark mode completely misses the point when it comes to eye strain anyway. For more than ten years now I've been using a low contrast colour scheme. It happens to be light on dark, but it's far from white on black (it's called Zenburn). I use this for emacs as well as terminals, which is where 90% of my work is done. I use "dark mode" plugins for Firefox simply because it reduces the contrast between the web and my work
This is precisely the reason I'm using Flux (or f.lux) DURING THE DAY to eliminate the amount of blue in the screen.
I'm currently using 4800K. The reason is twofold;
1. my screen now better blends in into the surrounding light and therefore feels more natural to look at and
2. in order to preserve my ability to see blue light. Research has shown (can't find it now, but it seems reasonable) that when you look too much to screens, the ability to see blue light becomes less as your brain tries to compensate for the amount of blue light, in order to give a more natural view of the screen.
Next to that, I'm putting the brightness of my MacBook and monitor that much lower, so it's about the same brightness as the surroundings. Meaning, brighter when I'm outside or the sun shines brightly in my room, darker when it's darker out- or inside.
I'm currently using 4800K. The reason is twofold;
1. my screen now better blends in into the surrounding light and therefore feels more natural to look at and
2. in order to preserve my ability to see blue light. Research has shown (can't find it now, but it seems reasonable) that when you look too much to screens, the ability to see blue light becomes less as your brain tries to compensate for the amount of blue light, in order to give a more natural view of the screen.
Next to that, I'm putting the brightness of my MacBook and monitor that much lower, so it's about the same brightness as the surroundings. Meaning, brighter when I'm outside or the sun shines brightly in my room, darker when it's darker out- or inside.
I think it also depends on the app.
For example Youtube and Twitch where the main content is in video format, dark mode is excellent - just like how the lights turn off in theatres.
Now when it comes to typing, in a Markdown app for example, a white background and black font feels more natural - just like a good old piece of paper.
For example Youtube and Twitch where the main content is in video format, dark mode is excellent - just like how the lights turn off in theatres.
Now when it comes to typing, in a Markdown app for example, a white background and black font feels more natural - just like a good old piece of paper.
As someone who has been severely visually impaired (thankfully in my case, just a mere two weeks of hiding in a pitch black room in searing pain unable to read at any distance), this is absolutely uninformed nonsense. Dark mode is literally the only thing that some people can look at.
I really wish auto dark mode (based on sunset time I believe) worked better on OSX. On my iPhone it works great and automatically switches to dark mode once the sun sets. On my MacBook it hardly ever remembers to switch across and I'm left with it constantly on light.
Really frustrating.
Really frustrating.
Are you on latest Mac OS? You can set it to switch at sunset.
The implementation that ships with the system is somewhat poor.
I think it’s dependent on the app. Lots of third party apps don’t seem to correctly implement listening for the theme change. In Chrome, for example, I always have the Dev Tools open in a separate window, and the theme seems to change while my Mac is awake, but if the theme is supposed to change while my Mac is asleep, it won’t ever change even after waking the machine up.
No, this is the system theme. I run additional scripts to keep apps in line with the system if they need help.
Do you mean that your system theme (e.g. the UI of system apps like Finder) doesn’t switch between light and dark based on the time of day? I haven’t encountered that problem, I’ve only seen third-party apps not keep their theme in sync with the system theme.
It's funny because it worked perfectly on my 2012 MBP, and now that I am on a 2020 MBP, it switches but later than sunset. :shrug:
If I set my city manually then it works.
If I set my city manually then it works.
Yeah, I’m not sure why it’s so inconsistent. Mine will never switch if there is a power assertion, which Safari seems to always create for no reason. I’m seriously considering going back to my old solution, which hooked directly into Night Shift to synchronize the appearance with that…
f.lux is still a thing.
https://justgetflux.com/
https://justgetflux.com/
I wonder how much of the HN discussion stems from what time of day people typically read text on their devices?
I'm one of those morning people, who works best from 5:00 AM to around noon. I like white backgrounds and black text, with lots of contrast. Anything else is just harder to read, and contributes to eye strain. These new dark UIs, and also flat UIs in general are just harder for me to read and harder to identify and separate the components, so I try to avoid them when I can. The Windows 10 UI is a particularly egregious example. The sun deck on my farm is my ideal development environment.
However, I can imagine that someone who generally works in a dark environment would prefer a dark background so as not to blast their eyes with light.
I'm one of those morning people, who works best from 5:00 AM to around noon. I like white backgrounds and black text, with lots of contrast. Anything else is just harder to read, and contributes to eye strain. These new dark UIs, and also flat UIs in general are just harder for me to read and harder to identify and separate the components, so I try to avoid them when I can. The Windows 10 UI is a particularly egregious example. The sun deck on my farm is my ideal development environment.
However, I can imagine that someone who generally works in a dark environment would prefer a dark background so as not to blast their eyes with light.
>I wonder how much of the HN discussion stems from what time of day people typically read text on their devices?
It does matter a lot.Entire marketing strategies are based om when is the best time to post things on SM platforms.
It does matter a lot.Entire marketing strategies are based om when is the best time to post things on SM platforms.
Dark mode is very useful for people with "eye problems", for example, eye floaters are small black points you see all the time, they usually appear with the age, dark mode make them "disapear" making you brain happier.
Thanks whoever started dark mode trend
Thanks whoever started dark mode trend
I've got floaters, they are never a concern when reading in dark or light mode until someone reminds me of them.
So byebye anecdotal eye floater guy who supports dark mode.
So byebye anecdotal eye floater guy who supports dark mode.
I also have floaters, which are visible against a white background regardless of screen brightness, and so I also prefer dark modes for that reason.
>In fact, this very site that you’re on right now automagically flips to dark mode if you’re that way inclined.
It does not come up that way for me. I'm on OSX with appearance set to dark. (Firefox 77.0.1)
Is there something I'm doing wrong? YC is a light theme too.
It does not come up that way for me. I'm on OSX with appearance set to dark. (Firefox 77.0.1)
Is there something I'm doing wrong? YC is a light theme too.
Kev recently updated his site design and appears to have removed the dark mode option via CSS.
Apple started it to improve battery life for their OLED screen future. Even today there are a bunch of major apps that haven't implemented dark mode yet. You have to start early so devs migrate by the time it's majority.
OLED probably means I can't use the traditional blue background anymore...
[deleted]
As someone who worked in the greenscreen era, I’ve always found the obsession with dark mode a bit weird.
It’s jolly handy if you want to use your screen at night without waking the wife. Other than that, I don’t find much to recommend it.
It’s jolly handy if you want to use your screen at night without waking the wife. Other than that, I don’t find much to recommend it.
At least the dark grey type on a light grey background seems to have gone away. Mostly. Maybe because if you go too far in that direction, Google's crawler decides you're keyword-stuffing with invisible text.
I'm a strong believer in night light / f.lux / color temperature changes, but dark mode complements it nicely when working at night. Yes, it sucks to work at night when you need to go to bed. But there is a huge perceptual difference I can feel between f.lux + dark mode or f.flux without it. Using something like Dark Reader on Firefox/Chrome, you can achieve Internet-wide dark mode easily. I think this is ideal if you're in the unfortunate position of needing it. It may decrease legibility but it beats feeling like having ones retinas burned out at night.
This article is the epitome of faulty generalization. Visual astigmatism is one of the most common eye conditions. Reducing the quantity of light on the screen greatly reduces glare and light scatter for those effected. And this is only one eye condition where illuminated black on white printing is far less than ideal.
Some readers, particularly those who are older, have a large number of "eye floaters", fibers that float in the vitreous of the eye. Illuminated black on white printing exposes these far more readily to the reader, making reading more challenging and chaotic.
Some readers, particularly those who are older, have a large number of "eye floaters", fibers that float in the vitreous of the eye. Illuminated black on white printing exposes these far more readily to the reader, making reading more challenging and chaotic.
I have a type of migraine called vestibular migraine and I can confidently say that using dark mode helps A LOT. I agree with previous comments, dark mode is not about optimising for the median, it's about giving more options, just like we did with screen readers, font sizes, etc.
It's one of the sad sides of tech: we have all this knowledge about accessibility and this is either siloed or just not talked about. Designers are learning about aesthetics, color theory, typography but not about making your product support as many humans as possible - which is a business outcome!
It's one of the sad sides of tech: we have all this knowledge about accessibility and this is either siloed or just not talked about. Designers are learning about aesthetics, color theory, typography but not about making your product support as many humans as possible - which is a business outcome!
From the comments here I am amazed that many people don't know about brightness controls.
We don't listen to our music at 90+% volume always (and then complain that we need amute mode). That would be absurd since there is a volume control that can be used to set the sound output to a level that's just enough louder than the ambient noise level that we can hear as much detail of the music as we like.
For displays, we have brightness control which serves the same purpose.
With proper brightness adjustment, light mode can and should be very comfortable and natural in all but extremely dark environments.
We don't listen to our music at 90+% volume always (and then complain that we need amute mode). That would be absurd since there is a volume control that can be used to set the sound output to a level that's just enough louder than the ambient noise level that we can hear as much detail of the music as we like.
For displays, we have brightness control which serves the same purpose.
With proper brightness adjustment, light mode can and should be very comfortable and natural in all but extremely dark environments.
Something touched on in this article, I suffer from a corneal condition that makes dark mode unusable for me. I have no trouble reading black text on white but trying to read white text on black is impossible.
I kind of got a little frustrated by the whole buzz around dark mode interfaces knowing that I wouldn't get any benefit out of it. I'm also annoyed by Steam (and others) for not providing a native light mode - it really is an accessibility issue for some of us.
I hope the hype around dark mode won't lead to neglect or worse a complete absence (steam) of a light mode.
I kind of got a little frustrated by the whole buzz around dark mode interfaces knowing that I wouldn't get any benefit out of it. I'm also annoyed by Steam (and others) for not providing a native light mode - it really is an accessibility issue for some of us.
I hope the hype around dark mode won't lead to neglect or worse a complete absence (steam) of a light mode.
I'd be more interested in a study specifically around coding, as coding in dark mode is even more popular then general dark mode.
Perhaps it's just the historical nature of coding on older displays that couldn't render white on black well, however I suspect that has more to do with syntax highlighting.
Colors show up much better against a black background, which probably helps in visually recognizing syntax forms via clearer colors. The only time I've used light mode while coding is when coding outdoors, where dark mode is simply too dark for the ambient environment.
Perhaps it's just the historical nature of coding on older displays that couldn't render white on black well, however I suspect that has more to do with syntax highlighting.
Colors show up much better against a black background, which probably helps in visually recognizing syntax forms via clearer colors. The only time I've used light mode while coding is when coding outdoors, where dark mode is simply too dark for the ambient environment.
The use of the phrase “techbro” immediately makes me sceptical of this article.
Surely the use of Dark Mode is purely on ascetic grounds.
Is anyone really justifying that choice by claiming it’s “easier to read”?
This reads like a massive straw man argument.
Surely the use of Dark Mode is purely on ascetic grounds.
Is anyone really justifying that choice by claiming it’s “easier to read”?
This reads like a massive straw man argument.
The article talks about eye strain, and states that using the OS's blue light filter is a better way to reduce eye strain. The blue light filter significantly reduces the amount of contrast, which makes the screen harder to use, especially with something like an IDE/Text Editor with many colors of syntax highlighting. I'd personally like to know if dark mode has less eye strain than default mode instead of knowing what the absolute best way to avoid eye strain is.
I have been using dark mode for years, usually green-on-black (though sometimes amber) for code editing and notes. Not all typefaces look good in dark mode however.
Maybe I prefer it because of retro-cool-nostalgia, but most of the time it just feels less stressful.
Dark mode also seems to be superior for phones and smartwatches in dark environments. One of these days I want to try red-on-black for reading and writing in a darkened room, as red light seems better for not interfering with night vision.
Maybe I prefer it because of retro-cool-nostalgia, but most of the time it just feels less stressful.
Dark mode also seems to be superior for phones and smartwatches in dark environments. One of these days I want to try red-on-black for reading and writing in a darkened room, as red light seems better for not interfering with night vision.
Theoretically white on black is harder to recognize than black on white.
When you have the same font weight, the white on black approach tend to make people feel the stroke looks thinner and more blurry.
If you are curious you can switch to black on white, then adjust the font weight to the thinnest until you feel it starts to be blurry. When switch back to white on black it would be more blurry to you.
But anyway it boils down to preference since people can adjust the font to compensate if it is blurry to them.
When you have the same font weight, the white on black approach tend to make people feel the stroke looks thinner and more blurry.
If you are curious you can switch to black on white, then adjust the font weight to the thinnest until you feel it starts to be blurry. When switch back to white on black it would be more blurry to you.
But anyway it boils down to preference since people can adjust the font to compensate if it is blurry to them.
Digging into the referenced source [1]:
> This result seems to suggest that, even though performance in light mode may be better in the short term, there may be a long-term cost associated with it.
So, don't start switching all your terminals and IDEs to light mode just yet. Also, this is just one study. Curious if there are more.
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/
> This result seems to suggest that, even though performance in light mode may be better in the short term, there may be a long-term cost associated with it.
So, don't start switching all your terminals and IDEs to light mode just yet. Also, this is just one study. Curious if there are more.
[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/
With a title like that, no productive discussion can be sparkled.
As other posters said and I am just going to repeat: the scientists can pull as many studies as they like. I find dark mode to be objectively better for me. It doesn't strain my eyes and is much more readable and quick to consume the content in 99% of the time -- there are rare exceptions but they are just that, rare exceptions.
Not sure how useful such an article is. It still reads like an opinion piece.
As other posters said and I am just going to repeat: the scientists can pull as many studies as they like. I find dark mode to be objectively better for me. It doesn't strain my eyes and is much more readable and quick to consume the content in 99% of the time -- there are rare exceptions but they are just that, rare exceptions.
Not sure how useful such an article is. It still reads like an opinion piece.
Personally, I enjoy changing colourschemes based on where I'm working.
Outside on the balcony? Xterm/vim with white background. 11pm in the livingroom? Xterm/vim with dark background.
I usually have a browser open when I'm coding, so being able to invert the colours is useful for me. If dark mode isn't dark enough, I wrote a Qt script to overlay 50% black overtop of all screens. Does anyone do this to preserve battery life?
Outside on the balcony? Xterm/vim with white background. 11pm in the livingroom? Xterm/vim with dark background.
I usually have a browser open when I'm coding, so being able to invert the colours is useful for me. If dark mode isn't dark enough, I wrote a Qt script to overlay 50% black overtop of all screens. Does anyone do this to preserve battery life?
This page did not automatically flip to dark mode on any of the browsers I use--which all are on dark mode--on my macbook, which is also using dark mode.
There is quite a bit of personal preference in every situation where someone prefers Dark vs Light Mode.
I prefer Dark Mode for certain tasks and in certain environments (lighting conditions, etc.), while I prefer Light Mode for other tasks and in other environments.
Moreover, I've experienced times where both modes have caused fatigue of some sort.
Thus, I'm skeptical whether an argument can be made for one mode over the other in all situations.
I prefer Dark Mode for certain tasks and in certain environments (lighting conditions, etc.), while I prefer Light Mode for other tasks and in other environments.
Moreover, I've experienced times where both modes have caused fatigue of some sort.
Thus, I'm skeptical whether an argument can be made for one mode over the other in all situations.
I prefer dark mode simply because the dirt/dust/fingerprints on my glasses show more while looking at bright screens. Looking at dark screens I don't notice my glasses being dirty at all. I find it inconvenient to wash my glasses more than once a day, and because of the terribly uncommon shape of my eyes, I can't afford contacts even with my vision "insurance".
Anyone here experience this thing with dark modes that the colors shapes stick in your eyes afterwards? Try old black-background websites with some neon color text and tel me how you feel.
For me there is too much risk of that with dark mode. The white background already gives me all the light I need so my eyes adjust and any colors can be used.
I would recommend a light gray background for the least strain on the eyes.
For me there is too much risk of that with dark mode. The white background already gives me all the light I need so my eyes adjust and any colors can be used.
I would recommend a light gray background for the least strain on the eyes.
Is giving people options such a good idea?
I wish I, as a lazy developer, had to do the least amount of work to make the most amount of users use my software, the quality of their experience be darned.
Electron gets me through most of the way. For the rest I have to write articles to convince people about the unnecessity of anything that makes me do extra work.
If someone could write a tool to automate such articles that would be great.
I wish I, as a lazy developer, had to do the least amount of work to make the most amount of users use my software, the quality of their experience be darned.
Electron gets me through most of the way. For the rest I have to write articles to convince people about the unnecessity of anything that makes me do extra work.
If someone could write a tool to automate such articles that would be great.
Reasons I use dark mode after decades of using light mode:
1. eye floaters: I keep noticing them with light backgrounds 2. poor office environment: with too much sunlight entering the windows, I have to boost screen brightness, which nukes my retina unless I use dark mode 3. poor screen: I have a Samsung UHD screen in which it is almost impossible to lower the brightness, dark mode is a relief
1. eye floaters: I keep noticing them with light backgrounds 2. poor office environment: with too much sunlight entering the windows, I have to boost screen brightness, which nukes my retina unless I use dark mode 3. poor screen: I have a Samsung UHD screen in which it is almost impossible to lower the brightness, dark mode is a relief
From my personal experience dark mode helps my eyes significantly. Without dark mode I get dry eye symptoms within a few hours regardless of the screen, but I can watch a dark screen basically forever without any issues. I also use a slight red shift, the dark reader browser extension, dark terminal, dark vim theme, dark wallpaper and android 10 in dark mode on OLED.
What a weirdly contentious article. This does not need to be a debate with a final answer that everyone shares. It’s personal preference.
Many people perceive light mode as the cause of eye strain. But blue light, among other things, is actually the cause of it most of the time.
That seems like an explanation of why to prefer dark mode over light mode when those are the choices available. Or are app/web developers making dark mode versions that actually use bright blue light?
That seems like an explanation of why to prefer dark mode over light mode when those are the choices available. Or are app/web developers making dark mode versions that actually use bright blue light?
This just reminded me that HN doesn’t have a dark mode. Also, bigger fonts would be nice. I can’t use user scripts or custom CSS on my iPad, and Reader Mode tends to fail here unless I point it to a meatier comment (it looks for the biggest blogs of text), so any tweaks towards improved readability here would be great.
I use dark mode when it's low light in my surroundings and a lighter colored mode when it's daylight. This is because I find that my monitor reflects more shine/glare when I have dark mode on in the daytime. And in the evening/night the white is also too bright, even though I am using f.lux etc.
I prefer dark mode as far as eye strain goes. My goal is to reduce the amount of light I'm staring at since I stare into a screen for a large portion of my day. Do take note of you are a designer though that I prefer a gray text black background. White text on black is too much contrast in most cases for me.
I don’t need any of the scientific research to choose dark mode, just my own opinion for my own uses.
I can use my phone in bed at night without the brightness being crazy. Case closed.
Also, it looks cooler, especially since my phone has an OLED display (which should also mean lower battery consumption). Case closed even further.
I can use my phone in bed at night without the brightness being crazy. Case closed.
Also, it looks cooler, especially since my phone has an OLED display (which should also mean lower battery consumption). Case closed even further.
> A dark blob on a light background is easier to see than the reverse
In the day perhaps. But a guy holding a flashlight at night is pretty damn visible.
Article doesn't cover it specifically, but I'd be interested to see how people perceive the ease of dark mode on OLED vs "dark mode" on LED.
In the day perhaps. But a guy holding a flashlight at night is pretty damn visible.
Article doesn't cover it specifically, but I'd be interested to see how people perceive the ease of dark mode on OLED vs "dark mode" on LED.
I used dark mode for about 8 years and I've gone back to light mode recently. It looks less cool, but my eye strain is gone and I've been able to go back to my older glasses.
I'm now almost certain 8-10 daily hours of reading code in dark mode contributed negatively to my vision.
I'm now almost certain 8-10 daily hours of reading code in dark mode contributed negatively to my vision.
[deleted]
It works great for our auto-generated visualsitemaps.
When we tried showing our dataViz in light-mode..it failed miserably.
However we may consider adding an *optional light-mode for the rest of the dashboard screens.
https://visualsitemaps.com
When we tried showing our dataViz in light-mode..it failed miserably.
However we may consider adding an *optional light-mode for the rest of the dashboard screens.
https://visualsitemaps.com
This discussion looks like a harmless discussion about preference.
But when it comes to a situation where you are deprived of natural sunlight because your co-workers use a dark mode and need the room to be pitch dark - this is when it becomes very harmful.
Dark Mode is much better for writing code with good quality. As everyone knows: Light attracts bugs!
(SCNR)
(SCNR)
I encountered dark modes in old CGI applications, it was the norm and it was at least a zero cost thing. I never regretted the usual win/mac style. I'd bet a dollar that nobody in the media industry had issues with dark mode.
Why must all sites be gray on gray?
There is a perfectly good brightness slider on my phone. If the white text is too bright, I can adjust it.
Also, I paid extra for a monitor / phone with a decent contrast ratio. Why won’t the internet let me have nice things?
There is a perfectly good brightness slider on my phone. If the white text is too bright, I can adjust it.
Also, I paid extra for a monitor / phone with a decent contrast ratio. Why won’t the internet let me have nice things?
Is there a free, preferably open source, reader web app with dark mode? I have an old Lumia lying around which is mostly useless by now but has a nice low-brightness screen.
BTW, other ideas are welcomed. Hate abandoning perfectly functional tech.
BTW, other ideas are welcomed. Hate abandoning perfectly functional tech.
It's not like you can use both. If the surrounding is dark, obviously a dark theme will be much nicer and better on the eyes. If it is noon and you are in a brightly lit room, a light theme will obviously work very well.
Maybe, maybe not. The thing that I prefer is choice, let people decide for themselves.
I prefer the option of having dark/dim modes when I have a migraine (yes, I shouldn't be using a computer then but sometimes you need to).
I prefer the option of having dark/dim modes when I have a migraine (yes, I shouldn't be using a computer then but sometimes you need to).
> because research suggests that going to the dark side ain’t all that.
So what? It's personal preference. A few studies aren't going to affect how most people rationalise it to themselves, because, who cares?
So what? It's personal preference. A few studies aren't going to affect how most people rationalise it to themselves, because, who cares?
I can certainly believe that lots of 'dark modes' are not well implemented and could lead to eye strain &c. I'm not sure that this demonstrates that dark mode is a bad idea in general.
I skip reading articles with white background when in bed, because the screen light is too bright even at the lowest screen brightness setting. Fortunately HN client can display comments white on dark :)
I don't use dark mode because of any of these specious reasons; I just like the way it looks. I think probably a lot of other people choose it for the same reason. It's not that big a deal.
YES. Dark mode is a great idea: it provides a choice. Studies are always "this is true for X amount out of 100%", and X is never 100%, so there are people who prefer dark mode. Me included.
Dark mode is certainly better if you have haze problems (e.g. cataracts). The last thing you want in that case is a lot of extra light around to be diffused all over the stuff you are trying to see.
I prefer light mode, therefore let's remove the option to choose dark mode from everywhere because only my opinion matters. Here's some scientific studies that back up my opinion.
I used to use dark mode, but now I just turn down the total brightness of my screen and I like it much more. I think people are confusing eye strain for staring at a bright light all day.
I just use the mode that works better in different applications.
I prefer sepia background for reader mode and ebooks. Night themes always for text editors.
It also matters a lot on when the room is brightly lit or not.
I prefer sepia background for reader mode and ebooks. Night themes always for text editors.
It also matters a lot on when the room is brightly lit or not.
I've found green on black easiest on the eyes, like the original computer monitors. I set up my eBook reader that way. The green is fairly dark (I read before bed at night).
One thing not noted or studied is the impact on using your phone in bed next to your partner.
Light mode lights up the bedroom and disturbs my partner while dark mode does not.
Light mode lights up the bedroom and disturbs my partner while dark mode does not.
On OLED screens, black pixels may actually be off, potentially reducing total light exposure significantly. Any studies about whether that’s good for you?
I'm so old that light mode seems like the new thing.
>this very site that you’re on right now automagically flips to dark mode
Maybe only if you mess with your about:config, haven't found a way to enable that in GUI.
Maybe only if you mess with your about:config, haven't found a way to enable that in GUI.
Doesn’t it just use CSS queries? My browser automatically converts supported sites to dark at evening, incl my own.
There are mainly three relevant, scientific facts that has to do with light mode and dark mode.
1) That points of light spread in your retina, while "points of dark" (absence of light) do not.
For this reason, light text on a dark background (dark mode) "bleeds" in your retina, which depending on your vision, becomes blurry and less in-focus, and letterforms begin to run into and merge with each other. This decreases legibility. Squinting reduces the amount of light, and is a common response to increase focus. Squinting is a cause of eyestrain. Turning down the brightness helps but may cause the text to be too dim, by the point where bleed is insignificant.
Dark text on a light background (light mode), on the other hand, has surrounding light bleed into it. This reduces contrast a little bit, but because modern screens already have so much contrast (and black-on-white is usually too high contrast anyways), but legibility remains ideal and there's no eyestrain due to focus problems.
2) That for dark text on a light background (light mode), an overly bright screen relative to the surroundings may cause eyestrain, as you squint to compensate. The maximum brightness on your screen is often too bright unless you're in a super sunny room. To correct this, hold a piece of white office paper next to your screen, and reduce brightness until the screen matches. (If you're watching movies or something, however, you'll probably want maximum brightness.)
3) That lots of light, apparently blue light, before bedtime, can work against you falling asleep.
What's this all add up to?
Well, if you're young with amazing eyesight, you might be able to do whatever you want, but you'll have an easier time if you don't keep things at maximum brightness when working, no matter which mode you're using.
And if it's close to bed then either f.lux or Night Shift are a good idea, with a dim screen if using light mode, or a not-too-bright screen if using dark mode.
But that for normal work during the day, if you have fairly average or worse vision? Light mode absolutely wins the day in terms of eyestrain and legibility, as long as your screen is kept to the brightness of a white piece of paper, and not more.
But if you just like the aesthetics of dark mode and you don't get eyestrain or headaches from any squinting? Then go ahead. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that long-term squinting causes any long-term vision deterioration. But as you get older, you may find yourself needing to switch back to light mode one day.
1) That points of light spread in your retina, while "points of dark" (absence of light) do not.
For this reason, light text on a dark background (dark mode) "bleeds" in your retina, which depending on your vision, becomes blurry and less in-focus, and letterforms begin to run into and merge with each other. This decreases legibility. Squinting reduces the amount of light, and is a common response to increase focus. Squinting is a cause of eyestrain. Turning down the brightness helps but may cause the text to be too dim, by the point where bleed is insignificant.
Dark text on a light background (light mode), on the other hand, has surrounding light bleed into it. This reduces contrast a little bit, but because modern screens already have so much contrast (and black-on-white is usually too high contrast anyways), but legibility remains ideal and there's no eyestrain due to focus problems.
2) That for dark text on a light background (light mode), an overly bright screen relative to the surroundings may cause eyestrain, as you squint to compensate. The maximum brightness on your screen is often too bright unless you're in a super sunny room. To correct this, hold a piece of white office paper next to your screen, and reduce brightness until the screen matches. (If you're watching movies or something, however, you'll probably want maximum brightness.)
3) That lots of light, apparently blue light, before bedtime, can work against you falling asleep.
What's this all add up to?
Well, if you're young with amazing eyesight, you might be able to do whatever you want, but you'll have an easier time if you don't keep things at maximum brightness when working, no matter which mode you're using.
And if it's close to bed then either f.lux or Night Shift are a good idea, with a dim screen if using light mode, or a not-too-bright screen if using dark mode.
But that for normal work during the day, if you have fairly average or worse vision? Light mode absolutely wins the day in terms of eyestrain and legibility, as long as your screen is kept to the brightness of a white piece of paper, and not more.
But if you just like the aesthetics of dark mode and you don't get eyestrain or headaches from any squinting? Then go ahead. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that long-term squinting causes any long-term vision deterioration. But as you get older, you may find yourself needing to switch back to light mode one day.
Great we are having some one off hunter/gatherer anecdotes. When I work with computer I am not looking at the hills to find some moving spot.
Here is one from me:
I am focusing my sight like I would be trying to pick berries in the forest. While between trees it is dark and berries are dark, as gatherers we were collecting berries, we should read black text on dark background.
Large white screens are overwhelming for me. For me it is better to have dark screen and bright spots to focus on. It helps with development to focus on specific lines instead of trying to get whole screen at once.
Here is one from me:
I am focusing my sight like I would be trying to pick berries in the forest. While between trees it is dark and berries are dark, as gatherers we were collecting berries, we should read black text on dark background.
Large white screens are overwhelming for me. For me it is better to have dark screen and bright spots to focus on. It helps with development to focus on specific lines instead of trying to get whole screen at once.
Weren't the origins of dark mode (not Amdek origins but mid-2000's) in all those browser extensions that displayed energy savings?
Well, I like Dark Mode on all the things. But there is no arguing that more light make my pupils contract and there for there is more depth of focus (like high F number in photography) and things are easier to read with a variety of eye deviations.
My wife always puts our TV in a very dim setting and complains about headache when I set it to max brightness. But I really get tired after watching a dim screen for 10+ min. I have aspherical lenses (different spherical radius in x vs y direction), not sure what the correct term is.
My wife always puts our TV in a very dim setting and complains about headache when I set it to max brightness. But I really get tired after watching a dim screen for 10+ min. I have aspherical lenses (different spherical radius in x vs y direction), not sure what the correct term is.
A great deal of people prefer dark mode. The number of people with this strong preference seems like it should be enough. I don't trust the studies cited here one bit: I remember when everyone was citing studies that said sans serif fonts were hard to read. Yeah, people find it hard to read when you change how they're used to reading. As if using a modern website consists of attentively reading large volumes of text serially. Even if it were true, who cares? People like it, let them enjoy it.
> When I was in the military, a key tactic of camouflage was to never, under any circumstances, expose yourself on a hilltop or similar, where your silhouette could be easily identified. A dark blob on a light background is far easier for the human eye to see, than the reverse.
I don’t think this is a good example. He is missing one important factor, which is lighting.
There is a back-light on screen, which make light colors pop out of the dark background.
While at night, since it’s in a low-light environment, our eyes can’t really see the colors.
I’m done reading!
I don’t think this is a good example. He is missing one important factor, which is lighting.
There is a back-light on screen, which make light colors pop out of the dark background.
While at night, since it’s in a low-light environment, our eyes can’t really see the colors.
I’m done reading!
P/s: If the writer compare light mode as a dark blob on a light background, dark mode should be showing a phone with light screen at night. It is pretty easy to see too
Thats cool and all but the website hijacks my scrolling and makes it horrible to read. Thats way worse than dark or light mode.
I absolutely hate dark mode.
I even had to install a Firefox plugin to disable dark colors, to make website that use it readable again.
I even had to install a Firefox plugin to disable dark colors, to make website that use it readable again.
As a person with 2 astigmatisms in different directions which smear white light, i thoroughly appreciate dark mode
I think there were studies that black text on yellow background is the easiest to read. Yellow Mode when?
I have been a die dark mode user till trying Facebook’s version. I have such a hard time finding anything
I think it’s a matter of personal preference. Though I wish most apps would use light mode by default.
I am not motivated by eye health or other health reasons. I just like/experience darkmode better.
I thought this article was going to point out that something had been discovered that challenged our belief about the way light influences our own circadian rhythm—nope! Dark mode for me is imperative, since I use my devices at night, and want my body to stay aligned to it's internal biological clock as closely as possible. Pretty significant omission.
How about this: we don't argue about what is better, but let ppl do what they want? :)
Dark mode has somehow reached meme status on the Internet, not unlike bacon, in that everyone now essentially either "f'ing loves" it or is (jokingly) deemed an untermensch.
Personally, I was never into dark mode so this article feels vindicating; nor bacon, for that matter. I think I just committed several incidents of e-blasphemy.
Personally, I was never into dark mode so this article feels vindicating; nor bacon, for that matter. I think I just committed several incidents of e-blasphemy.
Not sure why, my eyes have never been able to bear with the dark modes on all software...
I don't know, I guess it depends. I tried recently to switch to gruvbox dark, solarized dark and so other popular themes. It is difficult for me to use them in the day. Gave up after couple of days, switched back to intellij light + redshift app.
Late nights i just reduce the overall screen brightness.
Late nights i just reduce the overall screen brightness.
> Techbros everywhere
My migraines and headaches from light sensitivity tell me you’re wrong
My migraines and headaches from light sensitivity tell me you’re wrong
Dark mode is an accessibility feature that people happen to enjoy, I need it.
Had to stop reading when the author used the word "techbros"
the thing that that matters in the end is the speed of reading. Interestingly, i can't find a recent legibility study. The one from 2002 suggests small Verdana or largel Arial font.
Yes, it is. I like dark mode because it doesn't hurt my eyes.
Here's an aspect of this I never see mentioned:
DARK MODE SAVES BATTERY on mobile devices.
The screen uses energy to emit light. The less light it has to emit, the less energy it needs. The longer your battery lasts.
The screen uses energy to emit light. The less light it has to emit, the less energy it needs. The longer your battery lasts.
It's not only mentioned quite often, it is especially in the article. They argue that dark mode only saves battery if:
* Dark mode is truly black (not dark grey) and
* You use OLED or AMOLED screens.
But when that's the case it can save up to 41% of energy. They then argue, that if dark mode were to be a health detriment, that would be more important than battery charge.
(Note: That's what they argue. There are results that show that power consumtion scales mostly linearly with output brightness. Which would contradict the results in the article.)
* Dark mode is truly black (not dark grey) and
* You use OLED or AMOLED screens.
But when that's the case it can save up to 41% of energy. They then argue, that if dark mode were to be a health detriment, that would be more important than battery charge.
(Note: That's what they argue. There are results that show that power consumtion scales mostly linearly with output brightness. Which would contradict the results in the article.)
Yes, it is. it's that simple and my eyes approve.
I only use dark mode.
Been doing this for years and I wouldn’t go back.
Been doing this for years and I wouldn’t go back.
Its ok to use dark mode just because you like it.
Are you in a light room or a dark room?
1. Use dark mode
2. Filter blue light
3. Have ambient lighting
4. Your retinas will thank you
2. Filter blue light
3. Have ambient lighting
4. Your retinas will thank you
Yes its a great idea... what the hell!
I don't use it in my development environment. I tried it for a while, but didn't like it. Totally unscientific, visceral reaction, but there you go.
My preference is dark text on a parchment (off-white) background. Sort of like HN.
I've "trained" myself to weather uncomfortable stuff many times (for example, the keyboard that I'm using to write this very post is new, and I keep hitting wrong keys. That will stop, soon), so it wasn't just "old boomer no likee dark."
My preference is dark text on a parchment (off-white) background. Sort of like HN.
I've "trained" myself to weather uncomfortable stuff many times (for example, the keyboard that I'm using to write this very post is new, and I keep hitting wrong keys. That will stop, soon), so it wasn't just "old boomer no likee dark."
I'm squinting as I read this.
yes. too much bright hurts my eyes.
dark is comfortable to look at
Were you mommy arron
[deleted]
It. Ant yours
Y E S
If I am sitting in the dark the contest of a white screen to the light in the room caused much more eye strain than that of a dark mode screen. Not sure how the article missed that for me most relevant fact. This is why Apple has a daytime dependent dark/light mode auto switch.
Isn’t the dark mode something invented primarily as energy saving feature for OLED screens? I never even considered it to be protective for eyes.
I personally don't prefer it, but the significant battery life increase makes it worth it.
Not a lot of evidence behind f.lux either, but everyone just took it on which is interesting.
I love dark mode
It looks cool and makes me feel like a hacker. I mean, just look at it. It looks fucking cool. You can't deny it.
For me, dark mode is what you used on old 50 Hz CRT:s, where a light background would flicker so horribly that it drove you crazy in five minutes. If you had the luxury of professional kit, you used black-on-white.
Using light mode makes me feel like I'm pragmatic since I don't care about looking cool. But I still do.
No. No it doesn't.
1. I don't have that much faith in scientists. Someone trying to p-hack their way to a publishable result that's sensational enough to advance their career is not going to produce good advice for me.
2. Even if they were perfect scientists, they're not using my eyeballs. They're grading experiences on a bell curve and taking the median. We all experience things differently. This is the "fighter jet seat problem" - if you use the average then it fits no-one.
3. Even if I had average eyeballs (and I probably do), I doubt my situation is anything like the test subjects in the experiments. My home office isn't set up that well (I'm working on it).
4. My research, conducted using my eyeballs in my home office on my equipment, shows I prefer dark mode. I have tried both, and dark mode was the more comfortable experience. My experiment beats "multiple studies" for my situation. Yours may be different.