Is Dark Mode Good for Your Eyes? (2020)(kevquirk.com)
kevquirk.com
Is Dark Mode Good for Your Eyes? (2020)
https://kevquirk.com/is-dark-mode-such-a-good-idea/
374 comments
> This post seems to boil down to, "I read a summary of one study, so I am confident in telling you all how wrong you are".
Most/all of the points were well known back in the days when I used CRT monitors - he's not reporting something new. In fact, reading some of the comments, I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it.
It's just a preference thing. I myself prefer it as I grew up on terminals where dark was the default (and often, the only option). For those who prefer the opposite: Totally OK.
Most/all of the points were well known back in the days when I used CRT monitors - he's not reporting something new. In fact, reading some of the comments, I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it.
It's just a preference thing. I myself prefer it as I grew up on terminals where dark was the default (and often, the only option). For those who prefer the opposite: Totally OK.
> In fact, reading some of the comments, I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it.
That's actually kind of ridiculous.
I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
That's actually kind of ridiculous.
I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
Just as I don’t need research either to know that dark mode inherently increases eye strain thanks to the afterimages caused by using it for more than a couple dozen seconds at a time. I have my own two eyes after all, and plenty of other eyes across the web agree.
> Just as I don’t need research either to know that dark mode inherently increases eye strain thanks to the afterimages caused by using it for more than a couple dozen seconds at a time.
You've probably got your brightness too high if you're getting after images.
I use darkmode when I'm inside and turn my monitor brightness down. When I'm outside, I switch to lightmode and max out my monitor display. Work for me.
I suspect this is an extremely difficult question to answer until we have a perfect model of humans. Maybe there is some gene/mutation that affects something to do with brightness/darkness. Maybe there is some adaptation that happens after staring at at dark/light mode.
Unfortunately we are extremely far from having good models of the human body :(.
You've probably got your brightness too high if you're getting after images.
I use darkmode when I'm inside and turn my monitor brightness down. When I'm outside, I switch to lightmode and max out my monitor display. Work for me.
I suspect this is an extremely difficult question to answer until we have a perfect model of humans. Maybe there is some gene/mutation that affects something to do with brightness/darkness. Maybe there is some adaptation that happens after staring at at dark/light mode.
Unfortunately we are extremely far from having good models of the human body :(.
It’s too dim and too low contrast for me when I dial it down and leaves afterimages when it’s enough. It is a personal thing.
Also, for programming I’m using not dark nor bright mode. Something like #ddd on #444 on well-calibrated settings. Almost all sites which implement dark mode are much closer to #neutron_star on #black_hole than that, so I hate them when they fail to follow an OS setting.
Also, for programming I’m using not dark nor bright mode. Something like #ddd on #444 on well-calibrated settings. Almost all sites which implement dark mode are much closer to #neutron_star on #black_hole than that, so I hate them when they fail to follow an OS setting.
It's probably because you're using light dark text, on a dark background. To maximize eye-strain reduction:
* reduce monitor brightness
* increase contrast between background and text
For me, light grey background (no blaring, eye smashing white) with black text works well. The only point of "grey not white" is again, to reduce a smashed-in-the-face white background.
If one keeps the contrast difference low, that is, slightly-lighter dark text on dark background, then the monitor must be brighter to discern difference between text and background.
(Of course, as you have stated, this may not work for you.)
* reduce monitor brightness
* increase contrast between background and text
For me, light grey background (no blaring, eye smashing white) with black text works well. The only point of "grey not white" is again, to reduce a smashed-in-the-face white background.
If one keeps the contrast difference low, that is, slightly-lighter dark text on dark background, then the monitor must be brighter to discern difference between text and background.
(Of course, as you have stated, this may not work for you.)
Yes! That is my exact point. I'm glad you've found what works for you.
err well- anecdotal evidence may be a good basis for a theory that could be validated using an experiment, but it does not suffice to be calling somebody elses' argument ridiculous...
My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal.
It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. That should be obvious.
It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. That should be obvious.
> My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal.
It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evide...
It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evide...
Do you put your hand over fire or you need a study to confirm that fire will burn you?
That a hand over fire will burn you is not a subject of dispute. Everyone who attempts it knows it. That dark mode is better for the eyes very much is a subject of dispute, and many have tried it and disagree it is better.
Do you see a difference?
Do you see a difference?
> It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.
You are simply repeating something enough that you believe it to be true. You are misinformed about the meaning of the word anecdotal [1] and appear to be playing word games between "anecdotal", "anecdotal evidence", and a misunderstanding of what I wrote.
> It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.
What is the "it" in your comment? An experiment that someone performs is not anecdotal. [2]
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
You are simply repeating something enough that you believe it to be true. You are misinformed about the meaning of the word anecdotal [1] and appear to be playing word games between "anecdotal", "anecdotal evidence", and a misunderstanding of what I wrote.
> It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.
What is the "it" in your comment? An experiment that someone performs is not anecdotal. [2]
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Your own link starts with "Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation." Even if you actually performed some experiment on yourself, unless you had some outside method of calculating eye strain it would still be anecdotal evidence.
The problem with this approach is that it is biased towards short term effects at the cost of long term effects and when you realize this it's too late already. "Feels better" is obviously a very good heuristic and usually what's good short term is probably more likely to be good than bad long term and millions of people rely on this heuristic but it's good to be aware of the shortcomings of this approach.
Came here to say the same. A good example is low-quality sunglasses that don't block UV light. Pupils dilate when wearing sunglasses, because there's less light coming in. Dilated pupils let more UV light in compared to naked eye vision. Subjective experience might be relief, yet it's at the cost of long-term retinal health.
> It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark.
What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing?
What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing?
> What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing?
That wasn't part of my comment, which I why I didn't quote that.
> I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it.
You were not saying "it's just a preference thing" there.
That wasn't part of my comment, which I why I didn't quote that.
> I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it.
You were not saying "it's just a preference thing" there.
> My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment.
That's exactly what anecdotal means: one person's account of something.
What did you think it meant?
That's exactly what anecdotal means: one person's account of something.
What did you think it meant?
OMG didn't expect to see the "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise" argument here.
> OMG didn't expect to see the "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise" argument here.
And, you didn't see that here. That you would even think that shows that you didn't read what was written.
It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
And, you didn't see that here. That you would even think that shows that you didn't read what was written.
It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
That you still don't accept that this is exactly the argument you're making is unbelievable.
It shows just how people who see themselves as smart and scientific leaning can still fall to the same fallacies as any fool.
It shows just how people who see themselves as smart and scientific leaning can still fall to the same fallacies as any fool.
Slouching in a chair feels great right now, but I might regret it in 25 years time.
Which, to be honest, is just a more contrived way of saying "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise". It is only anecdotal evidence in any case.
> And, you didn't see that here.
We all literally did. You said, quoted:
> I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
That is exactly the same as "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise".
> It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
That's not how having eyes works - you are physically incapable of measuring eye strain yourself without external equipment and rigorous scientific process. Your subjective perception of reality is not objective reality itself, and your perceived comfort level is not consistent with the actual strain being put on your body, full stop.
Your logic of "each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them" directly implies that things that feel good are good for you, which is objectively not how the body works.
You're completely and categorically wrong here.
We all literally did. You said, quoted:
> I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
That is exactly the same as "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise".
> It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
That's not how having eyes works - you are physically incapable of measuring eye strain yourself without external equipment and rigorous scientific process. Your subjective perception of reality is not objective reality itself, and your perceived comfort level is not consistent with the actual strain being put on your body, full stop.
Your logic of "each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them" directly implies that things that feel good are good for you, which is objectively not how the body works.
You're completely and categorically wrong here.
Can I interest you in some homeopathic remedies or a bottle of snake oil? Maybe prayer? History is full of people who thought/think their bias and anecdotal evidence is good enough.
Those are some very poor comparisons. Maybe if someone is claiming that dark mode or light mode have long-term effects on your health, but what people are actually claiming is just that they find one or the other more comfortable. There’s no meaningful scientific “truth” to that beyond a person’s own stated preference, just like there’s no scientifically most comfortable pair of pants or best color of wall paint. For what it’s worth, my preference of pants is definitely biased and based on anecdotal evidence. I have a pair of legs to test it with myself.
These comparisons are entirely correct and accurate.
The linked article is about objective measures of eye strain and health. Unless someone explicitly says otherwise, it's very reasonable to assume that they're also discussing those objective measures instead of subjective perception. If not - they're completely off-topic and they shouldn't be commenting here.
In particular, the comment earlier in this thread "I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes." doesn't say "my subjective perception of eye-strain", so we can assume that they're referring to the objective measurements, as is the actual topic for the thread.
The linked article is about objective measures of eye strain and health. Unless someone explicitly says otherwise, it's very reasonable to assume that they're also discussing those objective measures instead of subjective perception. If not - they're completely off-topic and they shouldn't be commenting here.
In particular, the comment earlier in this thread "I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes." doesn't say "my subjective perception of eye-strain", so we can assume that they're referring to the objective measurements, as is the actual topic for the thread.
> Those are some very poor comparisons.
Not at all. I know people who tried homeopathic medicine and felt better afterwards, and swear by it. It is very much analogous.
Not at all. I know people who tried homeopathic medicine and felt better afterwards, and swear by it. It is very much analogous.
I think this illustrates well how we have to be careful with our arguments around quack medicine.
The problem with "works for me" is not that that argument is invalid in and of itself. The problem is that homeopaths don't actually know that it works for them. What healed your infection and what did and didn't help is almost impossible to know.
Dark mode is very different. "do I have eyestrain after 4 hours of work" is easy to answer, and dark mode can be toggled with a single click to see how it affects you.
The problem with "works for me" is not that that argument is invalid in and of itself. The problem is that homeopaths don't actually know that it works for them. What healed your infection and what did and didn't help is almost impossible to know.
Dark mode is very different. "do I have eyestrain after 4 hours of work" is easy to answer, and dark mode can be toggled with a single click to see how it affects you.
Just trust the science bro
“Science” is such an empty word, though. “Knowledge” and “research” are more concrete, and you can always ask whether knowledge is reliable and where its limit lie, and whether research is trustworthy.
Not everyone has eyes, on-average, the same as yours. E.g. I have astigmatism and dark-mode (crisp bright lines/dots on dark backgrounds) wreck absolute havoc on my ability to focus and read. And promoting "dark mode is good no matter what", forcing us to objectively think that we should be using it despite our medical conditions, is not helpful.
I do think it is a preference thing, but I also believe not all eyes are the same. I am myself visually impaired, and it is _so much_ easier to read a screen in dark mode. That is likely a different experience with healthy and eyes, but not all healthy eyes are the same either.
The flat-earth logic.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're one anecdata point without study.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're one anecdata point without study.
Now increase your sample size. Then, maybe, start to draw conclusions.
I mean it depends also on the type of looking you are doing. When I write actual prose the way I have to focus on text is different than when I code (which requires a more two-dimensional focus). P
For me personally I am fine with black on white on the former while I prefer dark mode on the latter.
I think your summary here more or less applies to the entire debate, and many other similar debates. When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't use dark mode because a meta-analysis of opthalmological studies indicates it may improve eye health, I use it because I like it and my eyes feel more comfortable using it.
Same here. I don't need some silly scientific study to tell me what is best for my eyes. It is light mode, all the way.
It's ridiculous to think that all our eyes are the same, and that some study can determine what is best for everyone.
And it's not that I've only used light modes and don't know any better. Our eyes and preferences change over time.
I grew up on what might be called "light modes": Teletype paper with black print on yellowish paper, and then punch cards and 11x13 fanfold paper with the white and green alternating stripes.
Later I spent many years using "glass teletypes" and the IBM Monochrome Display, both with green-on-nothing. I guess you would call that a dark mode.
When I started using Windows in the mid-1980s, I adapted to "light mode", but I had to turn the background down to a medium gray because even on a high end CRT display of the day, the flicker was so awful and it was less noticeable with a subdued background.
Then high-quality LCD displays came along and the flicker went away. Around the same time, my eyes were changing. I developed astigmatism, and even with good single vision prescription lenses (a must!) I found that text was much easier to read in a light mode. Perhaps for the same reason that I now have more trouble driving at night than I used to.
There is one bit of science to this: the light background causes your eyes' irises to stop down, and just as with a camera lens, this can result in a sharper image than a wide open aperture.
But again, my eyes are not your eyes, and I'm not disputing your preference for a dark mode.
I will say that one key to using a light mode successfully is to turn the brightness down. And maybe turn your room lighting up a bit. Someone else in the thread mentioned this, but a white background on your screen should be about the same brightness as a white sheet of paper in the same lighting conditions.
It's ridiculous to think that all our eyes are the same, and that some study can determine what is best for everyone.
And it's not that I've only used light modes and don't know any better. Our eyes and preferences change over time.
I grew up on what might be called "light modes": Teletype paper with black print on yellowish paper, and then punch cards and 11x13 fanfold paper with the white and green alternating stripes.
Later I spent many years using "glass teletypes" and the IBM Monochrome Display, both with green-on-nothing. I guess you would call that a dark mode.
When I started using Windows in the mid-1980s, I adapted to "light mode", but I had to turn the background down to a medium gray because even on a high end CRT display of the day, the flicker was so awful and it was less noticeable with a subdued background.
Then high-quality LCD displays came along and the flicker went away. Around the same time, my eyes were changing. I developed astigmatism, and even with good single vision prescription lenses (a must!) I found that text was much easier to read in a light mode. Perhaps for the same reason that I now have more trouble driving at night than I used to.
There is one bit of science to this: the light background causes your eyes' irises to stop down, and just as with a camera lens, this can result in a sharper image than a wide open aperture.
But again, my eyes are not your eyes, and I'm not disputing your preference for a dark mode.
I will say that one key to using a light mode successfully is to turn the brightness down. And maybe turn your room lighting up a bit. Someone else in the thread mentioned this, but a white background on your screen should be about the same brightness as a white sheet of paper in the same lighting conditions.
> When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice?
I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want to smoke cigarettes, you have the license to do so. But that doesn't mean there aren't objective reasons no to do so.
Generally speaking, preferences aren't beyond scrutiny or axiomatic, or outside rational consideration. If a preference is meaningfully harmful (dark mode probably does not qualify), then in a rational person it tends to shift accordingly once the harmfulness is understood. Stubborn irrational preferences (like those that involve addiction) may require some effort or intervention to recondition them to conform with our objective good. At the very least, we ought to avoid indulging them.
I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want to smoke cigarettes, you have the license to do so. But that doesn't mean there aren't objective reasons no to do so.
Generally speaking, preferences aren't beyond scrutiny or axiomatic, or outside rational consideration. If a preference is meaningfully harmful (dark mode probably does not qualify), then in a rational person it tends to shift accordingly once the harmfulness is understood. Stubborn irrational preferences (like those that involve addiction) may require some effort or intervention to recondition them to conform with our objective good. At the very least, we ought to avoid indulging them.
> I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything.
Au contraire, the problem is literally that we are forcing people. People are claiming medical issues (on both sides), too, so this is probably going to end up in some future debates about accessibility rules/laws.
You have the right to put a flashlight up to your eyes for 8 hours/day, you do not have the same right to do this to me.
Au contraire, the problem is literally that we are forcing people. People are claiming medical issues (on both sides), too, so this is probably going to end up in some future debates about accessibility rules/laws.
You have the right to put a flashlight up to your eyes for 8 hours/day, you do not have the same right to do this to me.
The independent thinker is an irrational addict.
And the healthy intelligent person invariably conforms to the consensus.
Is that how it is?
And the healthy intelligent person invariably conforms to the consensus.
Is that how it is?
This 100%. I've seen things extolling the virtues of light mode, and I try it out for a little while, and I just don't like it.
Personal choice, 41% battery reduction, and a distrust that any of the studies were on 8-12 hour reading sessions.
I have many reasons to distrust a study like this anyway, just like a lot of medical studies trying to find causations in everyday activities.
1. If the results aren't controversial it probably wouldn't get published ("dark mode is good for your eyes" is a boring result)
2. They can discard results that contradict the thesis without having to make them public.
3. How many people do we need to trust the results of a study like this? Whatever the number you think of, they probably used less than that.
When it comes to stuff like this, you can probably find studies stating the opposite anyway, it's not like there's a consensus on this stuff.
Look, darkmode, and the bluelight fear is not really based on that much science.
Yes, UV and top end blue does cause cataracts in people, but thats from the sun, not monitors.
There are at least two strands to darkmode, one is the "It stops me from sleeping" and the other is eye strain.
the sleeping part is almost certainly nothing to do with the colour temperature of the light coming out of your device. If you go outside at dusk, you will note that its overwhelmingly blue in most places, most of the year (in london its orange for an hour in april and october.) yes, sunset tends to be orange, but the long bit after (again depending on longitude) is overwhelmingly blue.
The moon casts blue light.
You can't get to sleep because you've been hooked on twitter/instagram/ticktok and are revved up because that's what they do. "YOU NEED TO DO THIS NOW" or "THE SITUATION IS REALLY BAD, BECAUSE YOU DIDNT X" and "OMG THEY ARE SO HOT" finally "YOU ARE FAILING BECAUSE YOU DIDNT DO THIS ONE OLD WEIRD TRICK"
You have tension headaches because you've been frowning at a screen for many hours. Or you've not blinked, looked up moved your eyes, or generally changed position.
Now, there are some people for whom this doesn't apply, and that blue light is the cause of their woes. But for 99.5% of you, it won't be.
Yes, UV and top end blue does cause cataracts in people, but thats from the sun, not monitors.
There are at least two strands to darkmode, one is the "It stops me from sleeping" and the other is eye strain.
the sleeping part is almost certainly nothing to do with the colour temperature of the light coming out of your device. If you go outside at dusk, you will note that its overwhelmingly blue in most places, most of the year (in london its orange for an hour in april and october.) yes, sunset tends to be orange, but the long bit after (again depending on longitude) is overwhelmingly blue.
The moon casts blue light.
You can't get to sleep because you've been hooked on twitter/instagram/ticktok and are revved up because that's what they do. "YOU NEED TO DO THIS NOW" or "THE SITUATION IS REALLY BAD, BECAUSE YOU DIDNT X" and "OMG THEY ARE SO HOT" finally "YOU ARE FAILING BECAUSE YOU DIDNT DO THIS ONE OLD WEIRD TRICK"
You have tension headaches because you've been frowning at a screen for many hours. Or you've not blinked, looked up moved your eyes, or generally changed position.
Now, there are some people for whom this doesn't apply, and that blue light is the cause of their woes. But for 99.5% of you, it won't be.
The moon casts blue light.
Moonlight is not blue. In fact it is more red than sunlight.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/72dkh.png
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4wtWq.gif
Moonlight is not blue. In fact it is more red than sunlight.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/72dkh.png
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4wtWq.gif
Thanks, this was new information for me. I always noticed how moonlight on snow looks blueish. But per the Wikipedia article on moonlight[1], this is apparently an illusion:
The color of moonlight, particularly around full moon, appears bluish to the human eye compared to other, brighter light sources due to the Purkinje effect. The blue or silver appearance of the light is an illusion.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
The color of moonlight, particularly around full moon, appears bluish to the human eye compared to other, brighter light sources due to the Purkinje effect. The blue or silver appearance of the light is an illusion.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
The comment you’re responding to is nonsense. They clearly don’t suffer from severe insomnia. Dark modes have been a godsend for me when it comes to falling asleep.
There’s no doubt that the stimulation from something like TikTok as opposed to reading a Gutenberg ebook has more to do with the content than the light emitting from your phone. The notion, however, that the light of the phone (or other screen) has nothing to do with mental stimulation is utter nonsense. Brighter light is more stimulating. Period. The details of blue light versus dark mode are completely secondary to the primary concern of a bright white screen with black text opposed to the opposite.
There’s no doubt that the stimulation from something like TikTok as opposed to reading a Gutenberg ebook has more to do with the content than the light emitting from your phone. The notion, however, that the light of the phone (or other screen) has nothing to do with mental stimulation is utter nonsense. Brighter light is more stimulating. Period. The details of blue light versus dark mode are completely secondary to the primary concern of a bright white screen with black text opposed to the opposite.
I suffer from severe insomnia. For quite a long time, I've used blue light filters and automatic dimmers on all my devices with screens. A few months ago, when I discovered that there are no studies that clearly confirm the benefits of those things, I decided to stop using them to see for myself.
So far, there is no observable difference. Now, I'm not going to claim that this is therefore obviously the case for everybody else. But, at the very least, it's not universally a "godsend".
So far, there is no observable difference. Now, I'm not going to claim that this is therefore obviously the case for everybody else. But, at the very least, it's not universally a "godsend".
I don’t use a blue light filter (my insomnia isn’t severe, but I’ve definitely been diagnosed). There is a palpable difference for me reading before bedtime with light text on a black background instead of black text on white. The gist of my comment was that the blue filter doesn’t matter. In fact, I’m sure the white text is emitting blue light. The point is that the total lumens is much more critical.
My experience has been widely anecdotally backed up in casual conversation in my life (including by a sleep specialist). The blue light stuff is a marketing ploy in my opinion. I’m mentioning blue light repeatedly because you highlighting this makes it seem like I failed to communicate my point. Dark mode, however, is universally a godsend (see “anecdotal evidence” acknowledgement).
Perhaps you’re not a reader? As an insomniac, the only excuse for not reading to fall asleep is ADHD or other focus problems. It’s too ideal a solution for insomnia not to be acknowledged in this context. Please forgive my inflammatory tone, but I tend to doubt you having severe insomnia (coupled with routine in-patient/out-patient sleep studies, medication, etc.) and not being able to follow the flow of my communication here. Having a hard time falling asleep and being diagnosed with severe insomnia are very different.
My experience has been widely anecdotally backed up in casual conversation in my life (including by a sleep specialist). The blue light stuff is a marketing ploy in my opinion. I’m mentioning blue light repeatedly because you highlighting this makes it seem like I failed to communicate my point. Dark mode, however, is universally a godsend (see “anecdotal evidence” acknowledgement).
Perhaps you’re not a reader? As an insomniac, the only excuse for not reading to fall asleep is ADHD or other focus problems. It’s too ideal a solution for insomnia not to be acknowledged in this context. Please forgive my inflammatory tone, but I tend to doubt you having severe insomnia (coupled with routine in-patient/out-patient sleep studies, medication, etc.) and not being able to follow the flow of my communication here. Having a hard time falling asleep and being diagnosed with severe insomnia are very different.
The moon wasn't the predominant source of light at night for most pre-industrial people. Fire was, and is what we evolved with, which is likely why red light doesn't cause your eyes to constrict (https://thehikingauthority.com/red-light-night-vision-a-myth...)
I would hesitate to believe that crowds sitting around a bright fire at night will produce more viable offspring than those fumbling in the dark away from the light.
The evolutionary mechanism for selecting blue-sensitive rod cells in our retinas along with red-sensitive cone cells must surely be unrelated to the sodium emission spectrum, given that so may other mammals have similar retinas but lack fire-making skills.
The evolutionary mechanism for selecting blue-sensitive rod cells in our retinas along with red-sensitive cone cells must surely be unrelated to the sodium emission spectrum, given that so may other mammals have similar retinas but lack fire-making skills.
Surely the theory is not about sitting at the fire, but about being able to quickly transition between fire and darkness.
But it might also be just a quirk of evolution, or have a completely different reason.
But it might also be just a quirk of evolution, or have a completely different reason.
I don't know enough about the relevant physiology to judge the article as a whole, but this bit is not correct:
"That’s why military grade night vision goggles always use a green light. You get a much clearer sight picture with extra contrast while preserving most of the night vision once the light gets shut off."
The trend these days is towards white phosphor in NVDs. This is because, while green is indeed better if you have to look at it and away repeatedly in low light, white is significantly better at producing high-contrast images. And you do want high contrast to be able to spot things when it's dark.
"That’s why military grade night vision goggles always use a green light. You get a much clearer sight picture with extra contrast while preserving most of the night vision once the light gets shut off."
The trend these days is towards white phosphor in NVDs. This is because, while green is indeed better if you have to look at it and away repeatedly in low light, white is significantly better at producing high-contrast images. And you do want high contrast to be able to spot things when it's dark.
Blue wavelength does have an effect on sleep. The photoreceptors linked to the suppression of melatonin are most sensitive to blue light. And melatonin is associated with the sleep-cycle regulation.
Now re-read the post you're actually replying to and notice that I didn't say anything like what you appear to be responding to.
I've never been worried about blue light. I sleep fine. And stayed away from social media because it seemed unhealthy to me from the start, so I've never been hooked on twitter/instagram/tiktok. I actually feel for the people who are obsessed with it, especially the number of journalists who seem to have defined their jobs and role in life around reporting what was said by whom on twitter. There seems to be a small trend forming around people exiting that particular sink hole and realizing immediate improvements in their life experience. I hope that situation continues to improve, but that's up to each person to decide whether social media is helpful or harmful for their life and goals.
While I do spend a lot of time in front of a screen, I also get up regularly, stretch, walk around, take the dog out for a walk, etc. So I don't get tension headaches. If I feel uncomfortable at all, I do something about it.
Your reply here makes a lot of assumptions about what you know about other people, their situations, what you know about this area of study, and what the solutions are. This is the actual issue that seems to make this light v dark mode discussion more difficult that it needs to be.
What has been properly studied in this area is pretty thin as most areas of scientific inquiry go. So there really isn't much anyone can claim to know here with the levels of certainty you seem to express.
Aside from that, you're being pretty aggressive about giving out unasked advice to people you don't know, whose situations you don't know.
If you can't understand why someone like myself can read and understand everything you just said and none the less enjoy dark mode; if it bothers you that people claim dark mode benefits them in spite of your certainty that they are mistaken and this is just a matter of having the right information, then you might try accepting that people are different, start asking more questions, and dial down the unasked advice. You might happier and more pleasant company for it.
Not everyone needs to be the same for you to be okay with the situation. You don't need to fix people. If anything you just need to understand more.
I've never been worried about blue light. I sleep fine. And stayed away from social media because it seemed unhealthy to me from the start, so I've never been hooked on twitter/instagram/tiktok. I actually feel for the people who are obsessed with it, especially the number of journalists who seem to have defined their jobs and role in life around reporting what was said by whom on twitter. There seems to be a small trend forming around people exiting that particular sink hole and realizing immediate improvements in their life experience. I hope that situation continues to improve, but that's up to each person to decide whether social media is helpful or harmful for their life and goals.
While I do spend a lot of time in front of a screen, I also get up regularly, stretch, walk around, take the dog out for a walk, etc. So I don't get tension headaches. If I feel uncomfortable at all, I do something about it.
Your reply here makes a lot of assumptions about what you know about other people, their situations, what you know about this area of study, and what the solutions are. This is the actual issue that seems to make this light v dark mode discussion more difficult that it needs to be.
What has been properly studied in this area is pretty thin as most areas of scientific inquiry go. So there really isn't much anyone can claim to know here with the levels of certainty you seem to express.
Aside from that, you're being pretty aggressive about giving out unasked advice to people you don't know, whose situations you don't know.
If you can't understand why someone like myself can read and understand everything you just said and none the less enjoy dark mode; if it bothers you that people claim dark mode benefits them in spite of your certainty that they are mistaken and this is just a matter of having the right information, then you might try accepting that people are different, start asking more questions, and dial down the unasked advice. You might happier and more pleasant company for it.
Not everyone needs to be the same for you to be okay with the situation. You don't need to fix people. If anything you just need to understand more.
> What has been properly studied in this area is pretty thin as most areas of scientific inquiry go.
Dry eye based eye strain & tension headaches have good literature to back them up. Its not unknown.
> Aside from that, you're being pretty aggressive about giving out unasked advice
its not advice.
> none the less enjoy dark mode
There is nothing wrong with darkmode, it just has no real medical effect. I have dark mode, and sometimes when I feel like it, high contrast.
You are confusing Ockham's razor with a personal attack.
Dry eye based eye strain & tension headaches have good literature to back them up. Its not unknown.
> Aside from that, you're being pretty aggressive about giving out unasked advice
its not advice.
> none the less enjoy dark mode
There is nothing wrong with darkmode, it just has no real medical effect. I have dark mode, and sometimes when I feel like it, high contrast.
You are confusing Ockham's razor with a personal attack.
"Dark mode" and "blue light" and so on remember me also of vertical mice to avoid strain in the "mouse hand". It is not the orientation of the mouse which hurts, it is holding that thing for hours. Solutions? Vary. Mostly using the keyboard for all appropriate tasks (contrary to typewriters you don't need much force to push a key) and place it in a comfortable distance for you, using a TrackPoint, a digitizer pen and tablet, using a bigger or smaller mouse appropriate for your hand and of course do something other with you're hand.
People also started using weird vertical-gripped "ergonomic" knives[0] during that time. They were absolutely horrible to use.
There is a tiny demographic of people with actual joint issues, but for anyone else a regular knife is just fine as long as you use the correct grip.
[0] https://www.arthritissupplies.com/assets/images/ape103-easi-...
There is a tiny demographic of people with actual joint issues, but for anyone else a regular knife is just fine as long as you use the correct grip.
[0] https://www.arthritissupplies.com/assets/images/ape103-easi-...
[deleted]
I was a big believer in dark mode for a long time, until I started trying to reduce my SAD symptoms during the winter time. I read this blog post here [0] after seeing it on HN, and ended up buying 28 100W equivalent bulbs and a 500W equivalent corn bulb. I get a pretty decent amount of light in my home office now, and light mode is essential on my workstation or it's almost impossible to even SEE anything on screen, since the external light will wash out the backlights of the LED. I bought some higher brightness monitors but am starting to realize all those years of using dark mode was just lending itself to me spending 8 hours a day working in a dark room and was making me depressed, especially in the winter.
It's been interesting because my wife is complaining about feeling glum but I've been in a much better mood than I've been in the last few winters. We're talking about spending a few thousand dollars to get ultra bright lighting throughout the house instead of just in my office.
[0] https://www.benkuhn.net/lux/
It's been interesting because my wife is complaining about feeling glum but I've been in a much better mood than I've been in the last few winters. We're talking about spending a few thousand dollars to get ultra bright lighting throughout the house instead of just in my office.
[0] https://www.benkuhn.net/lux/
Can you not use random acronyms without explaining what they are? Why do you expect that everyone knows what SAD means in your current context? I get it when someone mentions AWS or MSFT or LED on a tech site.. but "SAD syndrome" ?
Seasonal Affective Disorder, for anyone else wondering. Agree with avoiding "random" acryonyms if possible.
I agree, the rule of thumb I try to stick to regarding acronyms is adding the definition in parenthesis the first time it's used (although a footnote would work too).
SAD is a very well known acronym.
It certainly is here in the northern latitudes. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Florida has never heard of it.
I'm dumb, and for a minute I thought the parent was putting a lot of emphasis on their sadness during the winter.
This specific acronym is IMO a bit too appropriate for the subject.
This specific acronym is IMO a bit too appropriate for the subject.
It's a well-known concept here in northern Europe, and I must have seen the acronym before, but I did not recognize it.
The monitor brightness struggle was something I encountered first a 3 or so years ago when I moved into place with big windows that got a lot of natural light during the latter half of the day, even in the winter. Garden variety 250-350 nit displays really struggle with that kind of light, even if it's indirect and the screen in question is matte.
400-450 nits I've found is about the minimum for universally usable display brightness indoors, assuming either a matte finish or good anti-glare coating (e.g. like that on newer MacBooks). If it's the sadly far more common mirror-type glossy displays found on damn near every laptop and non-enthusiast/pro desktop monitor out there, you're going to need 500-600 nits to cut through the glare.
400-450 nits I've found is about the minimum for universally usable display brightness indoors, assuming either a matte finish or good anti-glare coating (e.g. like that on newer MacBooks). If it's the sadly far more common mirror-type glossy displays found on damn near every laptop and non-enthusiast/pro desktop monitor out there, you're going to need 500-600 nits to cut through the glare.
This has absolutely been my struggle since upgrading my lighting. It’s also so difficult to find data about how bright a monitor actually is! I bought some 1440p “gaming monitors” that I think are around 450 nits, and these are just barely bright enough for my newly lit up office.
This one has pretty decent brightness and comes with great blacks too.
And the widescreen format is great for development.
The 34" is basically an extended 27", whereas the 38" is an extended 32"
https://www.dell.com/en-uk/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-...
And the widescreen format is great for development.
The 34" is basically an extended 27", whereas the 38" is an extended 32"
https://www.dell.com/en-uk/shop/alienware-34-curved-qd-oled-...
Alienware QD-OLEDs have a special pixel layout which isn't good for text
It’s probably not as much of a problem on macOS and Linux where the majority of apps will obey system text rendering settings (and macOS defaults to non-subpixel AA anyway) but under Windows everybody does their own thing for text rendering regardless of how you’ve set up ClearType and it’s a mess.
Is it possible to have a 500 or 600 nits display, but still have the lowest brightness settings be equal or lower than the lowest settings of a 250 nits display?
That's my biggest issue
That's my biggest issue
Going below 50% brightness on _most_ monitors brings the flickering into the realm that many humans can perceive. This is because the physical brightness cannot actually be controlled, so PWM is used to adjust perceived brightness.
That is not true for many displays. Have a look at reviews, whether there is pwm control/flickering is part of all(?) professional reviews now.
Terrific, that is great to know. I might update my monitors if so.
:)
Maybe an aside, but for notebooks, I know that notebookcheck always has a section about this in their reviews. https://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Dragonfly-Folio-13-5-G3-con... for example - and even if PWM is detected, they check how high the frequency is (high enough and it should bother no one). For monitors, RTINGs.com checks for PWM, https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/alienware-aw3423... as an example (like imhoguy mentioned, flicker free is the keyword to search for).
Maybe an aside, but for notebooks, I know that notebookcheck always has a section about this in their reviews. https://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Dragonfly-Folio-13-5-G3-con... for example - and even if PWM is detected, they check how high the frequency is (high enough and it should bother no one). For monitors, RTINGs.com checks for PWM, https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/alienware-aw3423... as an example (like imhoguy mentioned, flicker free is the keyword to search for).
First thing when I buy any monitor is "flicker-free" keyword. If you got one with PWM then the best you can do is to max out the monitor LED brightness and reduce screen brightness/gamma with an app.
I added a diy 50W LED that shines on the white ceiling of my office room. The diffuse bounced light feels closer to sunlight. It’s wonderful for those darker days.
Make sure to get a high-CRI led, that’s what really makes the difference in my opinion. Cheap leds will have a narrow frequency band, high CRI is what makes the reflected light feel more real.
I use a cpu heatsink with silent fan to keep the led cool.
[0] https://aliexpress.com/item/4000393264115.html (48W warm white)
Make sure to get a high-CRI led, that’s what really makes the difference in my opinion. Cheap leds will have a narrow frequency band, high CRI is what makes the reflected light feel more real.
I use a cpu heatsink with silent fan to keep the led cool.
[0] https://aliexpress.com/item/4000393264115.html (48W warm white)
Fascinating, I’d be interested in seeing what ten or even twenty of these could do to a room. I’m curious how many lux I could get in a room without tripping a breaker. The added benefit is I don’t have to run a space heater!
Honestly, a single 50W led is more than enough for an office sized room. That’s not a lot of heat.
We’ve got 16A circuits at 220V here, so you could do about 70 of those before tripping a breaker :D
We’ve got 16A circuits at 220V here, so you could do about 70 of those before tripping a breaker :D
> Honestly, a single 50W led is more than enough for an office sized room.
You're talking about something very different than the original poster then. They mentioned something more in the 400 watt range. I have around 70 watts of LEDs (split between 7 bulbs) in my small office (7 square meters), and am considering boosting that significantly.
50 watts I would put in the range of "normal bright lighting" (it's approximately the equivalent of one halogen floor lamp). 400 watts gets into "trying to simulate sunlight for therapeutic reasons"-territory.
You're talking about something very different than the original poster then. They mentioned something more in the 400 watt range. I have around 70 watts of LEDs (split between 7 bulbs) in my small office (7 square meters), and am considering boosting that significantly.
50 watts I would put in the range of "normal bright lighting" (it's approximately the equivalent of one halogen floor lamp). 400 watts gets into "trying to simulate sunlight for therapeutic reasons"-territory.
How do you power your 48W LED? (i'm looking to create the same setup)
I'm interested in your light setup, particularly if you happen to use high-CRI bulbs.
It also took me ages to realize how large of an effect SAD had on me. I grew up in Texas, where it wasn't much of a thing, but went to college in Michigan and then moved to Germany (where I've been for 20 years) and it took me multiple years to notice the pattern of only struggling with what I'd previously dubbed "burn out" in the winter. That I used to visit Texas every Christmas masked the effect for a while since it gave me something of a reset during the shortest days of the year.
Now I manage with a combination of what I'd thought of as redonkulous amounts of lighting (20-ish bulbs in my living room, 7 in my small office), and usually 1+ months away from Berlin in the winter.
It's only been relatively recent that going to your extent in terms of lumens has been possible. I was previously pushing 1000w of halogen lighting in my living room, and going to a multiple of that felt like it got into extremely wasteful territory. (There is the reasonable counterargument that in winter, all of the lighting watts also heat the apartment, but I use my lighting setup for a lot of months where I don't also need heating...)
Do you also go for high-CRI bulbs? That's been a limiting factor for me at times is that I don't like the spectrum of cheaper LEDs (or CFLs) and often sourcing high-watt, high-CRI bulbs can be tricky. (I was late in switching to LEDs in general, having previously stockpiled halogen bulbs before they were banned in Europe, but a HN comment a couple years ago turned me on to high-CRI bulbs, which was a game-changer for me.)
It also took me ages to realize how large of an effect SAD had on me. I grew up in Texas, where it wasn't much of a thing, but went to college in Michigan and then moved to Germany (where I've been for 20 years) and it took me multiple years to notice the pattern of only struggling with what I'd previously dubbed "burn out" in the winter. That I used to visit Texas every Christmas masked the effect for a while since it gave me something of a reset during the shortest days of the year.
Now I manage with a combination of what I'd thought of as redonkulous amounts of lighting (20-ish bulbs in my living room, 7 in my small office), and usually 1+ months away from Berlin in the winter.
It's only been relatively recent that going to your extent in terms of lumens has been possible. I was previously pushing 1000w of halogen lighting in my living room, and going to a multiple of that felt like it got into extremely wasteful territory. (There is the reasonable counterargument that in winter, all of the lighting watts also heat the apartment, but I use my lighting setup for a lot of months where I don't also need heating...)
Do you also go for high-CRI bulbs? That's been a limiting factor for me at times is that I don't like the spectrum of cheaper LEDs (or CFLs) and often sourcing high-watt, high-CRI bulbs can be tricky. (I was late in switching to LEDs in general, having previously stockpiled halogen bulbs before they were banned in Europe, but a HN comment a couple years ago turned me on to high-CRI bulbs, which was a game-changer for me.)
To add a couple concrete questions:
- Did you experiment with any of the super high powered single LEDs? (e.g. 200-500w)
- How big a problem is monitor glare? Do you have a special monitor (e.g. Studio Display)? I have a 400 nit monitor (brightest 42" IPS monitor at the time I bought it), and I'm worried about going all in on lighting, and then not being able to effectively being able to use my monitor.
- Did you experiment with any of the super high powered single LEDs? (e.g. 200-500w)
- How big a problem is monitor glare? Do you have a special monitor (e.g. Studio Display)? I have a 400 nit monitor (brightest 42" IPS monitor at the time I bought it), and I'm worried about going all in on lighting, and then not being able to effectively being able to use my monitor.
I haven’t used any super high powered LEDs mostly because I wasn’t sure I wanted to commit to this. I spent $35 on a clearance corn bulb that uses 100W and outputs 10,000 lumens, but I’m not sure I’d recommend them as the light output seems “dirtier” (i.e. it flickers in webcams). Buying $120 worth of 1600 lumen each bulbs was incremental and I bought an 8 pack every few weeks until I’d filled all my light sockets.
I’m using ~400-450 nits brightness monitors and it’s fine in light mode. I can make things out in dark mode but it’s less pleasant.
I don’t get monitor glare but maybe that’s due to positioning? I have the corn bulb up and to the left of me and the 28 bulbs are stuck into the ceiling fan (which looks silly but works!)
I’m using ~400-450 nits brightness monitors and it’s fine in light mode. I can make things out in dark mode but it’s less pleasant.
I don’t get monitor glare but maybe that’s due to positioning? I have the corn bulb up and to the left of me and the 28 bulbs are stuck into the ceiling fan (which looks silly but works!)
I've had this issue. I have 5 1350 lumen bulbs in my office, but they are all 80 on the Color Rendering Index, and it's somehow bright and dull in here simultaneously. I think the sandblasted white chandelier covers make it worse as well.
CRI80 bulbs just grate on me. Even some of the ones rated 90 I find a little annoying (which I've occasionally had to settle for for e.g. downlights in a particular depth). And some of mine that I've bought that are rated 95+, I'm skeptical of.
I'm too pedantic / OCD-ish to deal with the colors being so off. If you're the sort of person that's bugged by that sort of thing, just bite the bullet and get the better bulbs. If you've still got old indansecents around, try them out in that fixture. If you feel like it restores sanity, then high CRI LEDs will too.
I wish I could say, "They'll last you 10 years", but my experience with LEDs has been that I feel like they literally die as often as my old incandescents, but because I use so many lights in my home, I'm happy for the power savings.
I'm too pedantic / OCD-ish to deal with the colors being so off. If you're the sort of person that's bugged by that sort of thing, just bite the bullet and get the better bulbs. If you've still got old indansecents around, try them out in that fixture. If you feel like it restores sanity, then high CRI LEDs will too.
I wish I could say, "They'll last you 10 years", but my experience with LEDs has been that I feel like they literally die as often as my old incandescents, but because I use so many lights in my home, I'm happy for the power savings.
Thank you, I will do that. Do you have a preferred brand/model for the high cri. shopping for bulbs is nearly as annoying as shopping for pc monitors.
Depends on the format and your location. If you're in Europe, and mention the size of the bulbs then I sometimes have preferences. Unfortunately, some of my go-to bulbs here are no longer in production. (Honestly, I have the feeling that high CRI bulbs are getting harder to find.)
I find high CRI bulbs hard enough to shop for that I've half-debated starting an online shop for them specifically.
I find high CRI bulbs hard enough to shop for that I've half-debated starting an online shop for them specifically.
I actually dont understand why other people can work in a dimly lit space and having dark mode on their monitor. It make feel so lazy and gloomy.
I come alive at night in a dark room. It makes me feel like the only things left in the world are just me and whatever I'm doing, giving me complete focus.
Different strokes, but totally on the same page.
A behaviour I've observed in myself is I gravitate towards big windows and like to work in an environment where I feel I have lots of space, but I am very happy working in complete darkness (but also value sunlight)
A behaviour I've observed in myself is I gravitate towards big windows and like to work in an environment where I feel I have lots of space, but I am very happy working in complete darkness (but also value sunlight)
Not everyone's bodies work the same. Working too long in a brightly lit room makes me extremely tired. The only way I can work long hours is in simulated twilight.
For me it’s an issue of seasonal depression. I get really agitated over the weeks and months of it being drab during the winter months, until I feel severe cabin fever in January or so and my mental state gets really, really bad, like “I’m going to book a flight to Miami and leave right now everything else be damned” sort of crazy. It’s not really a fun time.
I don’t mind working in a dark room, but if I do it for weeks at a time I’ll start to have problems if I’m not getting bright lights at other times (which during winter there aren’t many opportunities for).
It also has the hilarious added effect of totally blowing out my laptops webcam and making me look like I have an angelic halo of light atop my head.
I don’t mind working in a dark room, but if I do it for weeks at a time I’ll start to have problems if I’m not getting bright lights at other times (which during winter there aren’t many opportunities for).
It also has the hilarious added effect of totally blowing out my laptops webcam and making me look like I have an angelic halo of light atop my head.
In my case, it's either or: either dark room and dimmed screen or (more recently) dark mode on everything, or bright room and light mode. By bright I really mean bright - maybe not SAD-mitigation level like the OP, but I do turn on extra lights during the day, particularly when its cloudy.
What I can't tolerate is "half-light" - dimly lit space, afternoon/evening levels of daylight. Or the standard level of light most people have. Or warm light. That's one is actually a point of contention with my wife - she prefers warm light, I prefer cold. We compromised on "neutral", which has a benefit of not screwing with colors like warm does. It's tolerable for me, though I still occasionally notice how it yellow-tints everything.
By can't tolerate, I mean that in underlit rooms, I struggle to stay awake. Really struggle - I start to yawn uncontrollably, my mind gets hazy, and I need to pump myself with some stimulants (i.e. caffeine, usually) just to be able to function. Add more lights, or make the room dark, and I'm OK again.
What I can't tolerate is "half-light" - dimly lit space, afternoon/evening levels of daylight. Or the standard level of light most people have. Or warm light. That's one is actually a point of contention with my wife - she prefers warm light, I prefer cold. We compromised on "neutral", which has a benefit of not screwing with colors like warm does. It's tolerable for me, though I still occasionally notice how it yellow-tints everything.
By can't tolerate, I mean that in underlit rooms, I struggle to stay awake. Really struggle - I start to yawn uncontrollably, my mind gets hazy, and I need to pump myself with some stimulants (i.e. caffeine, usually) just to be able to function. Add more lights, or make the room dark, and I'm OK again.
> I bought some higher brightness monitors but am starting to realize all those years of using dark mode was just lending itself to me spending 8 hours a day working in a dark room and was making me depressed, especially in the winter.
One possible detriment to this idea is probably now staring at a bright monitor for 8 hours a day.
Considering that outside is also somewhat bright normally, it shouldn't be that significant of a problem, but then again, I've noticed that I blink less frequently when using a computer.
One possible detriment to this idea is probably now staring at a bright monitor for 8 hours a day.
Considering that outside is also somewhat bright normally, it shouldn't be that significant of a problem, but then again, I've noticed that I blink less frequently when using a computer.
> higher brightness monitors
There's also an emerging market of RLCD (reflective LCD) monitors which don't use internal backlight but instead rely on external light. If the monitor receives enough light the image is pretty sharp (they _need_ external light to be usable).
They are mostly available in bigger sizes but their resolution isn't great yet (I haven't seen higher than 1080p). But it seems that due to different technologies used, the text should be quite smooth and not that pixelated.
There's also an emerging market of RLCD (reflective LCD) monitors which don't use internal backlight but instead rely on external light. If the monitor receives enough light the image is pretty sharp (they _need_ external light to be usable).
They are mostly available in bigger sizes but their resolution isn't great yet (I haven't seen higher than 1080p). But it seems that due to different technologies used, the text should be quite smooth and not that pixelated.
Could you please tell us more about your bulbs?
Like you, I found a huge improvement in mood if I use light cues to help convince my body that I live in an eternal late spring. So far I've used Hue bulbs, as I love their color temperature range and the ease of programming. (For me it helps that a plausible day-night cycle just happens in my house.) But I've wondered if daylight-like lumens would be even better. And Hue is cost-prohibitive for that level of light.
Like you, I found a huge improvement in mood if I use light cues to help convince my body that I live in an eternal late spring. So far I've used Hue bulbs, as I love their color temperature range and the ease of programming. (For me it helps that a plausible day-night cycle just happens in my house.) But I've wondered if daylight-like lumens would be even better. And Hue is cost-prohibitive for that level of light.
I use Hue Bulbs in the rest of my house and they slowly dim in the evening, although you’re absolutely right that it’d cost thousands to buy enough hue bulbs. You’re better off buying dumb bulbs for daytime then equipping the rest of the house with Hue for a few hundred.
I just went to Home Depot and bought the 8-packs of 100W (13W) equivalent, 5000K, 1600 lumen non dimmable LED bulbs from Feit Electric. Screwed those into a 4-Way light ceiling fan using 4 7-way splitters.
I bought a big 10,000 lumen, 100W corn bulb (with no fan) at a Menards, and screwed that into an old floor lamp I had sitting around. This was actually my first try before I did the wider array of lights, but it wasn’t bright enough by itself. The light from this is also “dirtier” and depending on your webcam it might show lines as it’ll refresh at 60hz or 120hz or something like that, and make your Zoom calls look like you live in a CRT.
I know a lot of people talk about high CRI bulbs when you get into the weeds in this sort of stuff, but I didn’t want to make perfect the enemy of good here.
If you spent a little more you could buy dimmable bulbs instead, although it’d probably be easier depending on your hookup to just selectively shut off some of the bulbs to accomplish the same goal.
More holistically, for day night cycling, I’ve also started taking 0.3mg of melatonin (don’t take more than this, your body doesn’t need it, google it if you’re interested). I’ve found it helps me get to bed earlier and stay asleep until morning, where I’d wake up sometimes.
I just went to Home Depot and bought the 8-packs of 100W (13W) equivalent, 5000K, 1600 lumen non dimmable LED bulbs from Feit Electric. Screwed those into a 4-Way light ceiling fan using 4 7-way splitters.
I bought a big 10,000 lumen, 100W corn bulb (with no fan) at a Menards, and screwed that into an old floor lamp I had sitting around. This was actually my first try before I did the wider array of lights, but it wasn’t bright enough by itself. The light from this is also “dirtier” and depending on your webcam it might show lines as it’ll refresh at 60hz or 120hz or something like that, and make your Zoom calls look like you live in a CRT.
I know a lot of people talk about high CRI bulbs when you get into the weeds in this sort of stuff, but I didn’t want to make perfect the enemy of good here.
If you spent a little more you could buy dimmable bulbs instead, although it’d probably be easier depending on your hookup to just selectively shut off some of the bulbs to accomplish the same goal.
More holistically, for day night cycling, I’ve also started taking 0.3mg of melatonin (don’t take more than this, your body doesn’t need it, google it if you’re interested). I’ve found it helps me get to bed earlier and stay asleep until morning, where I’d wake up sometimes.
Oh wow, I had no idea light socket splitters existed. That solves a big problem for me! Thanks for all the detail here!
As for day-night cycling, I basically achieve the same thing through lighting, and I'm very happy with that. As my lights get warmer and dimmer in the evening, I very naturally start winding down. To get that with Hue's own automations requires me putting in something like 8 steps, though, so I'll soon be going back to my own software. Especially because I use my lights to change my time zone before trips to the east coast, so I'm not jet lagged when I arrive.
For video calls in particular I have an Elgato Key Light clamped to my desk at maximum extension and facing almost straight down. It gets me good brightness and controllable color temperature as well as pretty even lighting, which makes my calls look pretty good.
As for day-night cycling, I basically achieve the same thing through lighting, and I'm very happy with that. As my lights get warmer and dimmer in the evening, I very naturally start winding down. To get that with Hue's own automations requires me putting in something like 8 steps, though, so I'll soon be going back to my own software. Especially because I use my lights to change my time zone before trips to the east coast, so I'm not jet lagged when I arrive.
For video calls in particular I have an Elgato Key Light clamped to my desk at maximum extension and facing almost straight down. It gets me good brightness and controllable color temperature as well as pretty even lighting, which makes my calls look pretty good.
Isn't the electricity cost of those insane?
That's some 3 KW of lightbulbs in total, based on original comment, and I'm not sure if the OP is running them all at the same time. Even if, that's in ballpark of household appliances, and I imagine it isn't running 24/7 (and most of those lights are likely active only during 1/4 - 1/5 of the year).
Sure, it probably triples their power bill. But electricity is dirt cheap anyway - and if it mitigates their SAD, then it pays for itself.
I'm also guessing OP doesn't have any problem with heating in winter.
EDIT: I misread, OP isn't using 100/500W bulbs, but 100/500W equivalent - so the actual power use is not ~3KW, but probably under 1KW. It's very much in ballpark of combined use of household appliances, so I doubt it even doubles their power bill.
Sure, it probably triples their power bill. But electricity is dirt cheap anyway - and if it mitigates their SAD, then it pays for itself.
I'm also guessing OP doesn't have any problem with heating in winter.
EDIT: I misread, OP isn't using 100/500W bulbs, but 100/500W equivalent - so the actual power use is not ~3KW, but probably under 1KW. It's very much in ballpark of combined use of household appliances, so I doubt it even doubles their power bill.
My whole house is full of warm Hue bulbs. The handful of Hue lights that are color temperature-adjustable are all set to warm because blue-tinted lights drive me nuts. That said, I use Wirecutter's budget SAD lamp pick set to the bluest setting and maximum brightness for about 20 minutes per day to help me cope with this particularly gloomy Seattle season, and it definitely seems to help. So you may not need to rewire your entire house.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-light-therap...
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-light-therap...
Oh, interesting! Thanks for sharing your experience.
YMMV, but something I discovered is that light colors bother me when they're out of sync with my day-night rhythms. So mine start very warm in color, very gradually shift to pretty cool color temperatures as we approach noon, and then get warmer again into the evening.
My theory is that this gets me what the SAD lights are simulating without any manual effort, and it seems to be working. It also helps me with maintaining a regular sleep schedule in that it turns out I'm not a responsible light-switch user; it's easy for me to leave lights on and be active so late that I then have trouble getting up on time.
YMMV, but something I discovered is that light colors bother me when they're out of sync with my day-night rhythms. So mine start very warm in color, very gradually shift to pretty cool color temperatures as we approach noon, and then get warmer again into the evening.
My theory is that this gets me what the SAD lights are simulating without any manual effort, and it seems to be working. It also helps me with maintaining a regular sleep schedule in that it turns out I'm not a responsible light-switch user; it's easy for me to leave lights on and be active so late that I then have trouble getting up on time.
Yeah, I've thought about trying the Adaptive Lighting feature, as Apple calls it in the Home app with my compatible Hue lights, but only a small fraction of my Hue lights support changing color temperature, and having a mish-mash of blue and yellow lights scattered around my house just makes me angry :)
If/when I ever have reason to redo all of the lights in my house, I'll definitely go with all bulbs that support at least different color temperatures if not a full range of colors and give this a whirl.
My theory is that this gets me what the SAD lights are simulating without any manual effort, and it seems to be working
Very interesting...
If/when I ever have reason to redo all of the lights in my house, I'll definitely go with all bulbs that support at least different color temperatures if not a full range of colors and give this a whirl.
My theory is that this gets me what the SAD lights are simulating without any manual effort, and it seems to be working
Very interesting...
That's so many 100w bulbs, do you wear sunglasses indoors or soemthing? Very interesting.
It’s nothing compared to the brightness of outside (even on a cloudy day) unless you stare directly into the soul of the corncob.
They’re actually 13W or so? I use a 7-way splitter on 4 bulb slots made for higher watt incandescent bulbs. That helps a lot, then use a corn bulb I bought that uses 100W and puts out 10,000 lumens. It still only gets the room to 7,000 lux, which is less than a bright day. My Lux meter clocked 50,000 lux streaming through the window in October!
Have you ever tried a bright environment and dark mode monitor? I'm working with this one about 3 years and it makes me both relax and comfortable.
Maybe it’s just that my monitors are too dark, but when I try this everything just looks too washed out and I can’t really tell what I’m looking at. Switching to light mode was more a side effect of the increased lighting than anything.
I think the issue is a lot more subtle than simply "dark mode = better" vs "light mode = better". When it's dark around me, I don't want a bright white screen blinding me, so I prefer dark mode. But when I'm in a well-light room with a white wall behind my screen, I don't want to have to peer at a dark rectangle.
Also, whether you're using dark or light mode, contrast and brightness need to be set right, and I think they have different requirements for contrast and brightness; in dark mode, I suspect the fewer bright parts need to be brighter than the large light background in bright mode. So if you're comfortable using your current mode, simply switching to the other one without adjusting your contrast and brightness might indeed give you a worse experience, no matter which mode it is.
Or maybe not. I seem to be fine mixing different modes. I used to always have my IDE in bright mode, but it's currently in dark mode, and it's fine, and HN uses bright mode, and that's fine too. But I did notice that when it's dark, I do prefer dark mode.
Also, whether you're using dark or light mode, contrast and brightness need to be set right, and I think they have different requirements for contrast and brightness; in dark mode, I suspect the fewer bright parts need to be brighter than the large light background in bright mode. So if you're comfortable using your current mode, simply switching to the other one without adjusting your contrast and brightness might indeed give you a worse experience, no matter which mode it is.
Or maybe not. I seem to be fine mixing different modes. I used to always have my IDE in bright mode, but it's currently in dark mode, and it's fine, and HN uses bright mode, and that's fine too. But I did notice that when it's dark, I do prefer dark mode.
Many dark mode themes also aren't great. With bright mode you can get away with #000 on #fff but, at very least for me, just reversing that doesn't work all that well, I prefer at the very least background to be in #111-#222 range and maybe text not be in #fff but a bit lower.
On other side some dark themes have pretty terrible contrast, but that happens with white too, like HN just deciding light gray on light gray is fine just because someone downvoted a comment
Hell, even the header with buttons have [1] terrible contrast
* [1] https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=939392&...
On other side some dark themes have pretty terrible contrast, but that happens with white too, like HN just deciding light gray on light gray is fine just because someone downvoted a comment
Hell, even the header with buttons have [1] terrible contrast
* [1] https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/?fcolor=939392&...
Many light themes also increasingly suck, because they're just dark themes dunked in a can of white paint.
Before the dark mode fad took off, people used to just do UI design and make interfaces that were just that - interfaces. They weren't attempting to be obsessively light or dark, so we got a wide variety of things in app UIs and the UIs didn't shy away from borderlines, shadows, color, darker elements in an otherwise not very dark UI, etc.
Then dark mode happened, and everyone wanted to design dark mode things. Dark mode makes small contrasts more legible (IME) and makes colors really, really pop. So you can easily design very flat UIs without anything in the way of borders, and small bits of color are really dramatic and eye catching.
Not-dark colorscapes feel really different - small contrast differences aren't as salient, you can use dark elements in the UI without disrupting it much. Borderlines and drop shadows look great, really high contrast for text just feels nice. Color is a much more balanced part of the whole, so you can use it much more liberally and it'll just feel nice and balanced.
But those are not the UIs we get today. Humans love to categorize things, and they like pairs of opposites a lot. If we have a specific dark theme, well, what do we call the other one? Light theme, of course. And in a disastrous display of nominative determinism, that's exactly what we've gotten afterwards: Designers have intentionally started making UIs that are actively light, and those are not designed specifically - most are just slapping white paint on the existing flat dark theme, or otherwise obey those same design sensibilities with light grays on white and minimal use of color.
Why would anyone want to use light themes if they constantly get designed wrong? The proper contrast people should be working with isn't light and dark theme or white and black theme, but colorful and intentionally dark.
Before the dark mode fad took off, people used to just do UI design and make interfaces that were just that - interfaces. They weren't attempting to be obsessively light or dark, so we got a wide variety of things in app UIs and the UIs didn't shy away from borderlines, shadows, color, darker elements in an otherwise not very dark UI, etc.
Then dark mode happened, and everyone wanted to design dark mode things. Dark mode makes small contrasts more legible (IME) and makes colors really, really pop. So you can easily design very flat UIs without anything in the way of borders, and small bits of color are really dramatic and eye catching.
Not-dark colorscapes feel really different - small contrast differences aren't as salient, you can use dark elements in the UI without disrupting it much. Borderlines and drop shadows look great, really high contrast for text just feels nice. Color is a much more balanced part of the whole, so you can use it much more liberally and it'll just feel nice and balanced.
But those are not the UIs we get today. Humans love to categorize things, and they like pairs of opposites a lot. If we have a specific dark theme, well, what do we call the other one? Light theme, of course. And in a disastrous display of nominative determinism, that's exactly what we've gotten afterwards: Designers have intentionally started making UIs that are actively light, and those are not designed specifically - most are just slapping white paint on the existing flat dark theme, or otherwise obey those same design sensibilities with light grays on white and minimal use of color.
Why would anyone want to use light themes if they constantly get designed wrong? The proper contrast people should be working with isn't light and dark theme or white and black theme, but colorful and intentionally dark.
IntelliJ's "darcula" theme is the only dark mode I like cause it's a nice light grey rather than black.
Unfortunately with their recent redesign, the new default dark theme has joined the rest of the crowd with being way too dark, but thankfully darcula is still an option in settings.
Unfortunately with their recent redesign, the new default dark theme has joined the rest of the crowd with being way too dark, but thankfully darcula is still an option in settings.
web developers have not been using #fff and #000 for text and backgrounds for quite some time now
I think the issue is that people are adjusting what they see on screen instead of adjusting their environment (i.e. room lighting), even when they are totally able to do it.
A dark mode could make it bearable to work in poor light conditions but won't improve on the fact that it's already a non-optimal environment.
A dark mode could make it bearable to work in poor light conditions but won't improve on the fact that it's already a non-optimal environment.
I wish my son would just turn the lights on in his room when he's gaming. He's just sitting there in the dark.
Mind you, I do the same when watching TV. Some shows and movies these days are so dark you simply have to turn off the lights and close the curtains to see what's going on.
Mind you, I do the same when watching TV. Some shows and movies these days are so dark you simply have to turn off the lights and close the curtains to see what's going on.
Or adjusting the brightness of their screen.
Exactly, the glare from dark backgrounds in daylight is very straining on my eyes.
This. I switch the theme of IDE almost daily based on light conditions. Though generally dark themes are surprisingly harder on the eyes for me, even with enough light.
Having astigmatism, I definitely feel like text in dark mode is harder to read than dark text on light background.
In regards to eye strain with light mode, what I found important is to match screen brightness to „environmental brightness“ (don’t know the proper term).
As a rule of thumb, when I put a white paper in front of a white screen, the screen shouldn’t illuminate the paper more than the other lights in the room.
In regards to eye strain with light mode, what I found important is to match screen brightness to „environmental brightness“ (don’t know the proper term).
As a rule of thumb, when I put a white paper in front of a white screen, the screen shouldn’t illuminate the paper more than the other lights in the room.
It's the same experience for me.
I used to use dark mode every where because it was somewhat accepted that the lesser bright the better.
But then I read a science-based post years ago about why light mode is better for our eyes, especially for people with astigmatism, as our eyes are naturally used to focus on objects on bright scenarios (sunlight).
Switched back to light theme right away, except for coding, because actually syntax highlighting is better with dark background.
I used to use dark mode every where because it was somewhat accepted that the lesser bright the better.
But then I read a science-based post years ago about why light mode is better for our eyes, especially for people with astigmatism, as our eyes are naturally used to focus on objects on bright scenarios (sunlight).
Switched back to light theme right away, except for coding, because actually syntax highlighting is better with dark background.
Bit of a long shot, but I don't suppose you'd happen to know where to find that post or what it was called?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
Proposes that black on white text stimulates a pattern of expression in visual system that may contribute to myopia:
> 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.
Proposes that black on white text stimulates a pattern of expression in visual system that may contribute to myopia:
> 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.
Doesn't your quoted passage say the opposite? Reading white text on a black screen may inhibit myopia, and black text on white background does the opposite?
Careful there you got the conclusion other way around.
You said WoB contributes to myopia.
Your own source says WoB inhibits myopia.
You said WoB contributes to myopia.
Your own source says WoB inhibits myopia.
Damn you're right, I said it both ways around -- fixed
Not the poster, but I've seen a couple of these which cite papers and research:
https://stitcher.io/blog/why-light-themes-are-better-accordi...
https://medium.com/codesphere-cloud/should-you-really-be-cod...
https://stitcher.io/blog/why-light-themes-are-better-accordi...
https://medium.com/codesphere-cloud/should-you-really-be-cod...
sites designed in dark mode generally need to be larger / thicker, since white text on dark background tends to "appear thinner" and disappear into the background. Lots of sites only invert colors but don't account for this weird optical illusion and don't adjust font size/weights/colors.
It's the opposite for me with astigmatism. Black text on white tends to blur or double into a grey blob, white text on black still sometimes does that, but I find it easier to parse in comparison.
> „environmental brightness“ (don’t know the proper term)
"Ambient" brightness. You were close, and that term worked well enough!
"Ambient" brightness. You were close, and that term worked well enough!
I have astigmatism and experience the opposite. Not sure why. Is it because I always wear glasses?
I have astigmatism, and I read without glasses (by holding the device close enough to the eyes). I find black-on-white more readable in general, but red-on-black is equally readable at night.
Similarly. Astigmatism, glasses, and dark mode is a lot easier for me.
I'm in the same boat with corrective lenses. It would be interesting if glasses/contacts had this side effect.
I have astigmatism too. Dark mode is a bit blurrier, but at least I can't see my floaters.
Fair enough. I also have floaters, but not enough to be disturbing
> In regards to eye strain with light mode, what I found important is to match screen brightness to „environmental brightness“ (don’t know the proper term).
Oh yes, exactly this. At evening when sun is going down, then I can feel eye strain as I am looking into brighter and brighter monitor. Switching the light on will easily resolve it.
Oh yes, exactly this. At evening when sun is going down, then I can feel eye strain as I am looking into brighter and brighter monitor. Switching the light on will easily resolve it.
I second that. For me it's worse actually during times when I would normally use dark mode (i.e. evening). My 40-something eyes can get tired while having contact lenses and then dark mode is not so much helpful.
When switching to glasses it's actually bit better.
When switching to glasses it's actually bit better.
No correction glasses/contact lenses?
In my experience, these aren't perfect and symptoms of astigmatism can be aggravated by eye strain, dryness, allergies, poor lighting, etc even with correction.
So how you know that this is related to (and only to?) astigmatism?
There are vision defects that are attributed to misshapen lenses/cornea that seem to be common with astigmatism, and it's those defects that flare up under the conditions I listed in the OP.
I don't have conclusive proof, of course, but in my experience it is those symptoms that get exacerbated.
I don't have conclusive proof, of course, but in my experience it is those symptoms that get exacerbated.
Eh, I prefer dark mode aesthetically, and also I personally find that, at 4 am in a dark room where the only lights are a single desk lamp behind my monitors, and the monitors themselves, white backgrounds are painful. I’m willing to accept that if I was in a sunny room at high noon that light mode might be better.
Yes this is also because these days monitor engineers optimize for peak brightness and totally neglect minimum brightness specs. Because 600 nits looks great on a spec sheet and it's just difficult to regulate (backlight) LEDs over a huge brightness range without affecting color accuracy or causing excessive flickering. Nobody looks at the minimum spec if it's even provided.
So what they tend to do is to have the low end of the brightness range way too high and often even use tricks like simply displaying a darker image (Rather than a darker backlight) which reduces color depth and accuracy even more.
I use my otherwise excellent LG 24UD58 with brightness at 0% during the day! So during the night it's way too bright.
You can accomplish this also by setting the contrast to a low value on screens where the brightness simply doesn't go that low. But some screens just incorporate this trick in the brightness control themselves. Also you can use software options of which dark mode is one. However all these methods (with the exception of dark mode!) result in screwed up color depth (and thus excessive banding also) and dynamic range.
I grew up with white on black displays but these days I prefer black on white because it's easier to read with eyes that have astigmatism. But I end up using dark mode at night anyway because otherwise my display brightness just isn't bearable.
What doesn't help is that I live in a hot country with no AC and during summer I usually live with the windows open at night and the lights off to avoid attracting bugs. So it's difficult. I really wish display builders would optimize for low brightness more.
So what they tend to do is to have the low end of the brightness range way too high and often even use tricks like simply displaying a darker image (Rather than a darker backlight) which reduces color depth and accuracy even more.
I use my otherwise excellent LG 24UD58 with brightness at 0% during the day! So during the night it's way too bright.
You can accomplish this also by setting the contrast to a low value on screens where the brightness simply doesn't go that low. But some screens just incorporate this trick in the brightness control themselves. Also you can use software options of which dark mode is one. However all these methods (with the exception of dark mode!) result in screwed up color depth (and thus excessive banding also) and dynamic range.
I grew up with white on black displays but these days I prefer black on white because it's easier to read with eyes that have astigmatism. But I end up using dark mode at night anyway because otherwise my display brightness just isn't bearable.
What doesn't help is that I live in a hot country with no AC and during summer I usually live with the windows open at night and the lights off to avoid attracting bugs. So it's difficult. I really wish display builders would optimize for low brightness more.
The minimum brightness issue depends a lot on panel technology. IPS panels are great for their consistent color from any viewing angle, but they don’t give very dark blacks
If you want better contrast a VA panel does better, but they have color shift from different viewing angles.
Or if you have a lot of money, OLED is probably the best bet for this. But those are pretty new on the market and still expensive.
If you want better contrast a VA panel does better, but they have color shift from different viewing angles.
Or if you have a lot of money, OLED is probably the best bet for this. But those are pretty new on the market and still expensive.
> it's just difficult to regulate (backlight) LEDs over a huge brightness range without affecting color accuracy or causing excessive flickering.
It's not difficult. Any problem is designer laziness. Only real problem is if white light source used have some nonlinearity with white balance, but having accurate current control isn't all that hard, just gotta use actual current control instead of just PWMing CC source with no filtering whatsoever.
The problem is exactly what you mentioned after
> Nobody looks at the minimum spec if it's even provided.
nobody tests for that so consumer can't even find the good ones easily.
It's not difficult. Any problem is designer laziness. Only real problem is if white light source used have some nonlinearity with white balance, but having accurate current control isn't all that hard, just gotta use actual current control instead of just PWMing CC source with no filtering whatsoever.
The problem is exactly what you mentioned after
> Nobody looks at the minimum spec if it's even provided.
nobody tests for that so consumer can't even find the good ones easily.
>Yes this is also because these days monitor engineers optimize for peak brightness and totally neglect minimum brightness specs.
You can get a proper full range of brightness by using a radiology reading monitor. It's going to run you well into the four figures, though.
You can get a proper full range of brightness by using a radiology reading monitor. It's going to run you well into the four figures, though.
The "for medical diagnostic use" label generally triples (or more) the price - you can get the same grade monitor for $2000 or so (sold for eg high end photography / videography / magazine production work).
Do you have any experience using radiology monitors for reading? I nearly pulled the trigger on one earlier this year, but I couldn't find a greyscale one that supported a D50 white point. (Apparently traditional light boxes use white points as high as 11000K.)
Any particular model you’d recommend?
They aren't if you reduce brightness & contrast to something shortly above 10%.
As in my case. OFC brand new displays could use even less.
Also color temperature 'warm', something like 5000k, or even below.
If you can't setup them that way, they are broken by design and/or you're using them wrong.
Besides, even at high noon on a clear day I don't push them over 55%, when the sun shines in brightly from the side. Same during sunrise, or until sunset.
As in my case. OFC brand new displays could use even less.
Also color temperature 'warm', something like 5000k, or even below.
If you can't setup them that way, they are broken by design and/or you're using them wrong.
Besides, even at high noon on a clear day I don't push them over 55%, when the sun shines in brightly from the side. Same during sunrise, or until sunset.
They used to say it was bad for your eyes to watch TV without having a lamp on in the room. Looking it up now, it sounds like it causes eye fatigue but not damage.
Yeah, having some back lighting definitely helps prevent eye fatigue. I can't do staring at monitors in a pitch black room anymore like I used to when I was in high school. Nowadays if I do that my vision gets,,,squishy.
I have all my screens with the blue light filter always on. I find it painful to watch other screens now
"dark mode" is nice in theory, but the effect is completely broken as soon as anything non-dark slips through.
for instance (on windows at least) the program "OBS" uses a dark theme; in a recent version, when you open up any settings window, the window is drawn for a few milliseconds as a bright white square, before the dark window 'renders' [0]. this sudden strobe of white light, without warning, is worse than if the interface was just bright all the time (imo)
this flashing light issue has also plagued chromium off and on for over 10 years. [1]
[0] https://i.imgur.com/P9rM5A3.gif
[1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21798
for instance (on windows at least) the program "OBS" uses a dark theme; in a recent version, when you open up any settings window, the window is drawn for a few milliseconds as a bright white square, before the dark window 'renders' [0]. this sudden strobe of white light, without warning, is worse than if the interface was just bright all the time (imo)
this flashing light issue has also plagued chromium off and on for over 10 years. [1]
[0] https://i.imgur.com/P9rM5A3.gif
[1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21798
I don't know if it's a case of squeaky wheels or what (one set of users is more likely to complain than others) but I encounter "white flashes" with third party UI toolkits like you describe considerably less often under macOS than I do under Windows. Linux sits somewhere in between.
I like dark mode very much these days even during the daytime because I find staring at a bright white screen runs the risk of triggering a migraine. Dark mode screens don't do that.
The contrast between pure white backgrounds and pure black text is too stark and causes greater eyestrain when it's directly transmitted light as opposed to reflected light. Displays in light mode that are reflective do not have this kind of strain because their background is more silvery.
Turning down the brightness on a display is not really the solution because most displays use pulse width modulation so you are just exchanging brightness for flicker and strobing effects.
I pose you this question, when it comes to paper, do you enjoy reading books that are printed on pure white paper which has had optical brighteners added to enhance the effect, or do you prefer a softer natural ivory or linen colour? Perhaps light gray? If so, then why should your screen be pure white?
The contrast between pure white backgrounds and pure black text is too stark and causes greater eyestrain when it's directly transmitted light as opposed to reflected light. Displays in light mode that are reflective do not have this kind of strain because their background is more silvery.
Turning down the brightness on a display is not really the solution because most displays use pulse width modulation so you are just exchanging brightness for flicker and strobing effects.
I pose you this question, when it comes to paper, do you enjoy reading books that are printed on pure white paper which has had optical brighteners added to enhance the effect, or do you prefer a softer natural ivory or linen colour? Perhaps light gray? If so, then why should your screen be pure white?
> Turning down the brightness on a display is not really the solution because most displays use pulse width modulation so you are just exchanging brightness for flicker and strobing effects.
Gotta add this to my list of ways the market fails us that I wish I know how to correct. I get that PWM is an useful, probably most cost-efficient approach, but that doesn't explain so many shitty implementations I see even in expensive devices. In case of lights, it's harmful to a subset of people who notice this. It also ruins video recordings (less so these days - camera software now tries to compensates for it).
Then I see the same in electric and induction stoves, and microwave ovens - power level control implemented as sub-1Hz PWM (at this point the right term is probably "bang-bang controller"). I don't know about designers of those appliances, but my cookware and the stuff I cook often doesn't have enough thermal mass to "smooth out" the pulses - 50% of power implemented by heating at 100% for 3 seconds, and then 0% for 3 seconds, means my food gets overheated anyway, just half as fast, and I get to be annoyed by the sound of a clicking relay.
Gotta add this to my list of ways the market fails us that I wish I know how to correct. I get that PWM is an useful, probably most cost-efficient approach, but that doesn't explain so many shitty implementations I see even in expensive devices. In case of lights, it's harmful to a subset of people who notice this. It also ruins video recordings (less so these days - camera software now tries to compensates for it).
Then I see the same in electric and induction stoves, and microwave ovens - power level control implemented as sub-1Hz PWM (at this point the right term is probably "bang-bang controller"). I don't know about designers of those appliances, but my cookware and the stuff I cook often doesn't have enough thermal mass to "smooth out" the pulses - 50% of power implemented by heating at 100% for 3 seconds, and then 0% for 3 seconds, means my food gets overheated anyway, just half as fast, and I get to be annoyed by the sound of a clicking relay.
> If so, then why should your screen be pure white?
This is what it boils down to for most people. Using a less-than-pure white or a cream colour like HN makes for a much more pleasant read. At night it's often still too bright for me, but I'm happy to switch modes according to how I feel at the time.
This is what it boils down to for most people. Using a less-than-pure white or a cream colour like HN makes for a much more pleasant read. At night it's often still too bright for me, but I'm happy to switch modes according to how I feel at the time.
I find it works to run something like f.lux at all times. Whenever I have to turn it off for whatever reason it comes as a shock how bright everything is. I can't imagine working with that all day.
Basically, make light mode pleasant by using f.lux. Then there are no unpleasant transitions whenever something doesn't play along with dark mode.
Basically, make light mode pleasant by using f.lux. Then there are no unpleasant transitions whenever something doesn't play along with dark mode.
For me even with blue light blockers it's still too bright if my room is dark at night. When I turn it off (e.g. when the red intensity is very high for color quality in games) and switch to a light web page it's blinding.
Wonder if that's correlated with warm/cold light preference. I hate cream colors, they make me dizzy and sleepy. I stick as close to pure white as I can - if I have to dim it, I dim the screen, or apply a light gray (possibly biased towards blue) background.
> Turning down the brightness on a display is not really the solution because most displays use pulse width modulation so you are just exchanging brightness for flicker and strobing effects.
Thanks for mentioning this. I've never understood why people preferred dark-mode over reducing brightness of their screen. Perhaps, they are disturbed by flickering on a subtler level that they are not consciously aware of.
Thanks for mentioning this. I've never understood why people preferred dark-mode over reducing brightness of their screen. Perhaps, they are disturbed by flickering on a subtler level that they are not consciously aware of.
One way to dim the screen without activating PWM is to leave brightness at 100%, but in the monitor's panels change the custom preset for the RGB channels to a lower value like 50%. It basically has the presentation of a neutral overlay filter. There is technically some dynamic range compression, but it's a perfectly serviceable solution for systems where you have no ability to install software like f.lux, or when you don't want the overlay to be warm.
[deleted]
It seems likely the author was just into it because it is a fad. Here is why I use and like dark mode:
My eyes feel better on both short term and long term use. It doesn't feel as uncomfortable on my eyes.
Whether or not it is technically more readable or not doesn't matter to me. I don't need a study of a population to know what feels better to me. I'm a sample size of one, but the only one in this case that matters. Others are free to make their own choice. YMMV.
My eyes feel better on both short term and long term use. It doesn't feel as uncomfortable on my eyes.
Whether or not it is technically more readable or not doesn't matter to me. I don't need a study of a population to know what feels better to me. I'm a sample size of one, but the only one in this case that matters. Others are free to make their own choice. YMMV.
All I can say is :shrug:
As soon as I left the comfortable worlds of Apple ][ and MS-DOS and got shoved into Windows 3.0, I pined for a dark screen and started fucking with the color profile. When I was 12.
When I started running Solaris and Linux boxes in college, always had a dark terminal, and wrote my code in vi.
The older I get, the more I crave the darkness, and the UX bros are accommodating me.
Maybe it's just too late for me already.
As soon as I left the comfortable worlds of Apple ][ and MS-DOS and got shoved into Windows 3.0, I pined for a dark screen and started fucking with the color profile. When I was 12.
When I started running Solaris and Linux boxes in college, always had a dark terminal, and wrote my code in vi.
The older I get, the more I crave the darkness, and the UX bros are accommodating me.
Maybe it's just too late for me already.
It is interesting how different people have different experiences. I grew up in the days of green monochrome terminals and monitors, and hated them. I bought an amber monitor as soon as they became available, and that helped a bit with the eyestrain.
Windows 3, Word for Windows and TSE were a godsend to me. Finally, I could read and write code and documents the way I thought they were intended to be viewed- dark text on a light background, mimicking real-world books and papers.
Today, I do use dark mode; my devices are set up to go dark late at night, in case I wake up and want to check something without burning my eyes. But that comprises a miniscule amount of the time I spend in front of a screen.
Windows 3, Word for Windows and TSE were a godsend to me. Finally, I could read and write code and documents the way I thought they were intended to be viewed- dark text on a light background, mimicking real-world books and papers.
Today, I do use dark mode; my devices are set up to go dark late at night, in case I wake up and want to check something without burning my eyes. But that comprises a miniscule amount of the time I spend in front of a screen.
>Finally, I could read and write code and documents the way I thought they were intended to be viewed- dark text on a light background, mimicking real-world books and papers.
Real-world paper doesn't have a backlight behind it, projecting bright white light directly into your eyes. If you want to see documents the way they were "intended" to be viewed, you need to use an e-ink screen.
Real-world paper doesn't have a backlight behind it, projecting bright white light directly into your eyes. If you want to see documents the way they were "intended" to be viewed, you need to use an e-ink screen.
Why should your eyes care whether the light was generated behind the screen or bounced off it? Photons are photons.
Because directly-transmitted light from an LCD screen's backlight doesn't scatter the way diffuse, reflected light from a piece of paper does. It's like comparing a laser to a flashlight.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense at all. An LCD screen emits photons of all wavelengths and in all directions, as does a piece of paper. That's totally different to flashlight vs. laser, where there is a physical distinction between the types of photons being emitted.
This was certainly true in CRT times, but since the advent of LCD I prefer light mode, and it is easier on my eyes (as long as the brightness matches the ambient light). Only with OLED do I prefer dark mode, at night, at least on mobile devices (haven’t used an OLED desktop yet).
I have lots of eye floaters which annoy me when I'm looking at bright uniform surfaces, such as white paper or white background, but I hardly notice them with dark mode.
This is why I use dark mode too – and it's made a huge difference for me. My floaters are particularly noticeable on white-backgrounded screens/webpages on my 43" external monitor where because, I assume, my eyes have to dart across greater distances than when I'm using my MBP 14".
Yup I've had also had some show up in the past while (got it checked out to make sure no concerns), and looking at a very bright screen makes them _very_ apparent. I already preferred a darker screen but this just sealed the deal.
Same. They don't bother me in every day life at all. Stick me in front of a white screen though and they become incredibly distracting,
Came here to write this exact comment. Floaters are distracting and break the flow. Dark theme means less distractions. This was probably the easiest choice I made in my life.
This post is mostly misleading.
Its not clear at all that blue light has a significant impact on sleep or eyestrain; the science is ambigious.
The main piece of research referenced suggests that dark mode is worse in situations of low ambient light. But that was at small text sizes; of course, light text on a dark background has less contrast than dark text on a light background. That doesn't address the question of whether dark mode, used correctly, helps to alleviate eyestrain in low ambient light conditions. The suggestions offered seem to have little empirical evidence to back them up. If you feel more comfortable using dark mode at night there is little here to suggest that it would be harmful.
Its not clear at all that blue light has a significant impact on sleep or eyestrain; the science is ambigious.
The main piece of research referenced suggests that dark mode is worse in situations of low ambient light. But that was at small text sizes; of course, light text on a dark background has less contrast than dark text on a light background. That doesn't address the question of whether dark mode, used correctly, helps to alleviate eyestrain in low ambient light conditions. The suggestions offered seem to have little empirical evidence to back them up. If you feel more comfortable using dark mode at night there is little here to suggest that it would be harmful.
I'm using dark modes since my Atari 600 XL days. Then C64. Then Amiga. Then DOS. Sadly then then some Windows 3.1 and 95 where dark themes weren't a thing and I dearly missed my DOS text editors and tools (Norton Commander etc.), all dark.
But thankfully Linux happened. I'm running my xterms with "reverse video" (aka a dark theme) on since Debian 1.1 or so (not Debian 11 but Debian 1.1). The parameter to xterm for "reverse video" is called "-rv".
Emacs: dark theme since forever. Fun fact IntelliJ used to ship without a dark theme but everything was configurable, so I created my own dark theme for early IntelliJ (the only issue was broken font anti-aliasing on a dark background: solved by using a pixel perfect font).
Nowadays? Dark themes everywhere of course and this blog post won't convince me to change.
But thankfully Linux happened. I'm running my xterms with "reverse video" (aka a dark theme) on since Debian 1.1 or so (not Debian 11 but Debian 1.1). The parameter to xterm for "reverse video" is called "-rv".
Emacs: dark theme since forever. Fun fact IntelliJ used to ship without a dark theme but everything was configurable, so I created my own dark theme for early IntelliJ (the only issue was broken font anti-aliasing on a dark background: solved by using a pixel perfect font).
Nowadays? Dark themes everywhere of course and this blog post won't convince me to change.
I'm also sick of this trend in particular when websites or apps start shipping dark mode as default. It's not a good way to read text. Light text on a dark background reduces the amount of light getting into your eyes, it means your pupil needs to open wider and that has several negative effects one obvious is a halo-effect around letters that makes light text bleed into the background reducing readability. You don't really need to trust any science for that. Look at bright text on dark background and then look at a white wall. Chances are you can literally still see the text as an after image.
The reason why so many people seem to switch to it is because they literally live in goblin caves without proper lighting. Working in a well lit room and not at night and a properly configured monitor is a much better solution than dark mode.
The reason why so many people seem to switch to it is because they literally live in goblin caves without proper lighting. Working in a well lit room and not at night and a properly configured monitor is a much better solution than dark mode.
> 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.
There's a scenarion when this is incorrect: when the light foreground is the only source of light.
I use black backgrounds with white text for reading on OLED because the only light entering my eyes is the information I need. You can tell me all you want that it doesn't reduce eye strain, it does. I can tell because I can feel my eyes.
There's a scenarion when this is incorrect: when the light foreground is the only source of light.
I use black backgrounds with white text for reading on OLED because the only light entering my eyes is the information I need. You can tell me all you want that it doesn't reduce eye strain, it does. I can tell because I can feel my eyes.
Yes, my eyes don't hurt anymore, my vision has improved, and I sleep better. I won't go back. Reading condescending insults and "reasons" (in dark mode...) that flatly contradict direct experience won't change that.
Here here. I hate hate hate light text on dark backgrounds. I have to work harder to read, and as soon as I look away, I see ghosting everywhere for a few seconds. Complete rubbish dark mode is. I have blue eyes, ~-6.5 near-sighted correction, and a pretty bad astigmatism, so this may have something to do with it.
Same here. I can't tolerate light text on dark background. Same ghosting issue. I prefer light mode to dark mode anyday.
> By default, the human pupil changes size depending on the amount of light in the environment
This is the key: Do you work on a very illuminated place? Use light mode. Do you work in somewhat darkness? Please use dark mode.
At least that's what I try to follow, otherwise at the end of the day my eyes gets very tired.
This is the key: Do you work on a very illuminated place? Use light mode. Do you work in somewhat darkness? Please use dark mode.
At least that's what I try to follow, otherwise at the end of the day my eyes gets very tired.
One should always adjust screen brightness to the ambient lighting. If ambient lighting is so low that an accordingly “bright” background provides too little contrast for black text, then yes, dark mode becomes preferable. This is probably a similar point as when printed material becomes too difficult to read. But the other option is to just not work in such a dim environment.
It's usually always possible to just illuminate the room unless you are out programming at a bus stop at night I guess.
Or you have to use a highly reflective monitor. Or you have a blessed matte monitor but you have whiteboards, stainless steel appliances, glass, bright colored walls, and other stuff at various angles in the environment behind you. In which case the first thing you and everyone else trying to see past the reflections is going to do is dim the lights and lower the shades.
Eye health for closeup (e.g. computer) work:
Ambient lighting ~= screen brightness, whether light or dark
Dark ambience = dilated pupil = 0.5 diopter decrease in lens focus
Tear film over eyes helps focus: blink, yawn, monitor dehydration & humidity
Best light: unfiltered daylight, e.g. window behind computer screen
Artificial: high CRI LED, low flicker, low blue (e.g. 2700K Sylvane Truwave)
For closeup glasses, fixed lens focal length at lens-screen distance
20-20-20: look out window, or 20+ foot distant object for 20s every 20m
Daily exposure to natural light, with distance focusing for eye musclesGot a source/link for this? Seems like good advice that I can incorporate into my routine, but I want the non-TL;DR version.
There are many sources for each. Web search or https://hn.algolia.com should find them.
I'll take that as a "no." I appreciate the summary anyway, thanks.
Instead of a low-effort comment implying that a high-effort summary with zero rebuttals has been conjured out of nothing, please ask any question, about any sentence, for which you cannot find a source on the first page of Algolia/Google after entering the sentence as a query. They have been discussed many times here on HN and there are excellent references in those earlier threads. Alternately, ask the nearest optician or ophthalmologist.
Perhaps you've read too much into my reply. I'm capable of looking things up in my own time - thank you for your offer to help me, though - I was wondering whether you were summarizing a single source. You made it clear that you were not.
I thought I thanked you and moved on, but it seems I've pissed you off. Sorry, guess the curt and literal HackerNewsSpeak is rubbing off on me.
I thought I thanked you and moved on, but it seems I've pissed you off. Sorry, guess the curt and literal HackerNewsSpeak is rubbing off on me.
Thanks for the clarification. I wrote the summary because I've not seen those topics covered in a single article. To salvage this sub-thread, here is some related content :)
Dedicated computer glasses for screen distance, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30560500
2018 discussion of computers and eye health, including one point forgotten above—move the screen as far away as practical, to reduce eye stress from extended periods of closeup focus, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16146106
Yawning/tears for eye lubrication, https://iristech.co/yawning/
Ambient light, pupil dilation and focus, https://endmyopia.org/why-vision-is-worse-at-night-and-on-cl... (this user-contributed article stands alone, the rest of the site is not endorsed by mainstream optometry)
Dedicated computer glasses for screen distance, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30560500
2018 discussion of computers and eye health, including one point forgotten above—move the screen as far away as practical, to reduce eye stress from extended periods of closeup focus, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16146106
Yawning/tears for eye lubrication, https://iristech.co/yawning/
Ambient light, pupil dilation and focus, https://endmyopia.org/why-vision-is-worse-at-night-and-on-cl... (this user-contributed article stands alone, the rest of the site is not endorsed by mainstream optometry)
Dark mode allows you to use a high brightness and contrast setup in more lighting scenarios, you can't use high brightness in the darkness if 99% of the screen is white.
Something could be said for appropriate lighting, but in the reality is your don't got to choose that all the time, and sometimes you just want to maintain the lighting situation because of another activity (maybe a baby is asleep in the same room, or you or someone else is watching a movie).
There's nothing more jarring than lighting up a dark room with your phone because you opened up something that decides to predominately use white for some reason, besides the fact it definitely uses more power on an amoled display, which most displays are hopefully moving towards.
I'm sure light mode appreciators are always on top of changing their display brightness, but I'm still curious how they deal with amoled displays.
Something could be said for appropriate lighting, but in the reality is your don't got to choose that all the time, and sometimes you just want to maintain the lighting situation because of another activity (maybe a baby is asleep in the same room, or you or someone else is watching a movie).
There's nothing more jarring than lighting up a dark room with your phone because you opened up something that decides to predominately use white for some reason, besides the fact it definitely uses more power on an amoled display, which most displays are hopefully moving towards.
I'm sure light mode appreciators are always on top of changing their display brightness, but I'm still curious how they deal with amoled displays.
Not to be a sage here, but "every research is an average taken in the past on other people".
What works for the average is likely a good starting point. It is not necessarily the best for you and a given case (almost for sure different from the experimental ones).
What works for the average is likely a good starting point. It is not necessarily the best for you and a given case (almost for sure different from the experimental ones).
My issue when using dark mode was the inconsistency between windows.
I noticed I was getting extreme eye strain because I kept alt tabbing from apps that supported dark mode to apps that didn't. That constant change from light to dark screens was far more straining to my eyes than my screen being consistently bright.
I quite like the sepia night mode settings though. I don't find it helps with sleep as some claim, but it does seem to make the screen slightly easier to look at for longer periods.
I noticed I was getting extreme eye strain because I kept alt tabbing from apps that supported dark mode to apps that didn't. That constant change from light to dark screens was far more straining to my eyes than my screen being consistently bright.
I quite like the sepia night mode settings though. I don't find it helps with sleep as some claim, but it does seem to make the screen slightly easier to look at for longer periods.
I primarily use dark mode when I am in the dark or in a dimly lit room.
Having any light blasted right into my eyes hurts. And ruins my night vision. And also messes with my sleep.
Agreed—the article is sort of silly in that it debunks a bunch of bogus claims about dark mode, but then completely overlooks the main legitimate use, which is to limit exposure to artificial light at night. You basically want to get as much light during the day as is safely possible to stay focused and alert (note that this can be counterindicated for people with certain health conditions, like glaucoma), and then limit light exposure as much as possible at night in order to be able to fall asleep and keep your circadian rhythms healthy. More information here, e.g. https://hubermanlab.com/dr-samer-hattar-timing-light-food-ex...
> You basically want to get as much light during the day as is safely possible to stay focused and alert (note that this can be counterindicated for people with certain health conditions, like glaucoma)
Incidentally, for most people, this means that - unless they're spending most of their time outdoors - they're not getting enough light.
Incidentally, for most people, this means that - unless they're spending most of their time outdoors - they're not getting enough light.
Same here. I also switch to light mode when I'm in a very bright environment and it seems to have helped a lot with eye strain since last year. I feel like these studies are being a bit 1-dimensional... but then again, maybe that's my own confirmation bias.
I’d say that’s normal (studies being one-dimensional). The idea being to isolate as many complications as possible to get at the heart of one single matter.
I didn’t read the study itself, but usually the scientists (if they aren’t pushing an agenda) are aware of the limitations of their studies. It’s the people reporting and commenting on those studies that extrapolate unwarranted conclusions and generalizations from them.
I didn’t read the study itself, but usually the scientists (if they aren’t pushing an agenda) are aware of the limitations of their studies. It’s the people reporting and commenting on those studies that extrapolate unwarranted conclusions and generalizations from them.
ramraj07(4)
Light mode for me, always. I just lower the brightness level in night/dark settings and when in bed.
I actually had to learn advanced config editor in Firefox to stop websites from forcing dark mode without alternative.
I actually had to learn advanced config editor in Firefox to stop websites from forcing dark mode without alternative.
I don't understand how this debate has become about which mode is biologically the most optimal for legibility. The obvious, clear benefit of dark mode is that there's less light, which feels more comfortable to many, many people.
I'm curious, how many of my fellow dark-mode users also struggle with migraine headaches? Perhaps this and other light-sensitivity afflictions can explain why dark mode seems to be so contentious...
I'm curious, how many of my fellow dark-mode users also struggle with migraine headaches? Perhaps this and other light-sensitivity afflictions can explain why dark mode seems to be so contentious...
It's because there's a common trope online that people say seeing something in light mode is "blinding" or "makes my eyes bleed".
I think it's therefore important that the actual benefits of dark mode are tested scientifically and not just assumed.
I think it's therefore important that the actual benefits of dark mode are tested scientifically and not just assumed.
Is it not enough that a person feels very strongly that one way is more comfortable for them? Why must we quantify when someone is physically uncomfortable?
Theoretically it would be probably be optimal in terms of the science of visual perception to flood my room with the brightest white light possible, instead of using my usual dimmed yellow lights. It would also make me feel subjectively terrible (like my eyes were bleeding) so I don’t do it, and I don’t need a study to back it up.
Theoretically it would be probably be optimal in terms of the science of visual perception to flood my room with the brightest white light possible, instead of using my usual dimmed yellow lights. It would also make me feel subjectively terrible (like my eyes were bleeding) so I don’t do it, and I don’t need a study to back it up.
> Is it not enough that a person feels very strongly that one way is more comfortable for them?
Well, no.
If people think something is helping their eyesight, but it's really making it worse, that's a problem.
A lot of dev and gamer oriented sites/apps have a dark mode because it's trendy.
Whether it is objectively better is something I'm very interested in, especially as there are some things (e.g. Twitch's theatre mode) that only offer a dark mode.
Well, no.
If people think something is helping their eyesight, but it's really making it worse, that's a problem.
A lot of dev and gamer oriented sites/apps have a dark mode because it's trendy.
Whether it is objectively better is something I'm very interested in, especially as there are some things (e.g. Twitch's theatre mode) that only offer a dark mode.
Fair enough! I do agree that it’s important to back up any concrete biological claims related to eyesight or other long-term effects. But I’m moreso trying to argue that beyond specific claims about legibility or eye strain, it’s quite easy to understand that dark schemes are less blinding and therefore more comfortable for anyone sensitive to bright light.
They're not really wrong - I use light themes but occasionally experiment with dark ones and though both transitions can be jarring, the dark->light one is easily worse. The issue is that the shock is temporary, and long term using light themes avoids the "flashbang" issue of mixing light/dark colorscapes.
I suffer from migraines when using light themed IDEs. I learned this about 10 years ago when working in a dark theme I could work all day, but when I spent all day working on SQL in Sql Server Management Studios white theme I would go home with a migraine every day.
I understand that in certain lights white themes are probably easier, but I just have myself setup to only need dark themes now because migraines suck
I understand that in certain lights white themes are probably easier, but I just have myself setup to only need dark themes now because migraines suck
To me, the biggest issue with dark mode is that it doesn't differentiate between chrome and content.
Dark chrome helps light content pop, reduces distractions. Unfortunately, the moment one turns it (dark chrome) on, the content goes dark too.
Depending on your eyesight, you might be OK. I for one can't look at dark content in light ambient conditions for longer than few minutes without discomfort.
Dark chrome helps light content pop, reduces distractions. Unfortunately, the moment one turns it (dark chrome) on, the content goes dark too.
Depending on your eyesight, you might be OK. I for one can't look at dark content in light ambient conditions for longer than few minutes without discomfort.
This is what people quite consistently mess up these days. Go back to the earlier days of æsthetic dark themes¹, which was largely in things with the chrome/content split such as Photoshop, and you see this clearly. The purpose of their æsthetic dark modes with their low contrast and neutral middling-dark colours was to draw attention to the content and minimise chrome distraction.
Of browsers: Firefox defaults to having content matching the browser theme, but does let you change it: Settings → General → Language and Appearance → Web site appearance: Automatic/Light/Dark. (In the distant past, this defaulted to matching the OS theme—which almost always meant “light” on Linux and Windows—and could only be changed via about:config. In Firefox 95, the default was changed to matching the browser theme, in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529323. In Firefox 100, the preference was finally added to Settings.)
—⁂—
¹ There are several distinct categories of dark modes, with significantly different characteristics. I recognise four general categories (though there are certainly intermediate states too): æsthetic, accessibility, low-light, and power-saving. I wrote a bit more about each in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28516862. These days, æsthetic is the most common.
Of browsers: Firefox defaults to having content matching the browser theme, but does let you change it: Settings → General → Language and Appearance → Web site appearance: Automatic/Light/Dark. (In the distant past, this defaulted to matching the OS theme—which almost always meant “light” on Linux and Windows—and could only be changed via about:config. In Firefox 95, the default was changed to matching the browser theme, in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1529323. In Firefox 100, the preference was finally added to Settings.)
—⁂—
¹ There are several distinct categories of dark modes, with significantly different characteristics. I recognise four general categories (though there are certainly intermediate states too): æsthetic, accessibility, low-light, and power-saving. I wrote a bit more about each in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28516862. These days, æsthetic is the most common.
FWIW, and as a person who almost always prefers light mode but who’s also invested a fair bit of energy into getting dark modes right, one of the nuances of a good dark mode implementation is that it uses darker areas very similarly to light mode. A generally good light mode and its corresponding generally good dark mode will usually map:
- Base background: white or slightly off white -> a dark enough grey or off-grey for good baseline contrast
- Borders: darker on the grey scale -> dark enough to strongly contrast the base background, or omitted for bordered areas which are already that dark
- Toolbars, window handles, other concrete “chrome” areas: darker than baseline, for both light and dark modes
- Buttons and text: high contrast, dark in light mode, light in dark mode
- Active items: accent color or outline for maximum contrast
- Colors generally: the same hues except when other color perception preferences are chosen (for either mode), but generally a slightly lower saturation for dark mode backgrounds, and hue adjustments for color perception errors in color spaces
All of this in my experience needs a lot of eyeballing but quite a lot could probably be approximated with good perceptual light and color models. But I’ll still prefer light mode most of the time.
- Base background: white or slightly off white -> a dark enough grey or off-grey for good baseline contrast
- Borders: darker on the grey scale -> dark enough to strongly contrast the base background, or omitted for bordered areas which are already that dark
- Toolbars, window handles, other concrete “chrome” areas: darker than baseline, for both light and dark modes
- Buttons and text: high contrast, dark in light mode, light in dark mode
- Active items: accent color or outline for maximum contrast
- Colors generally: the same hues except when other color perception preferences are chosen (for either mode), but generally a slightly lower saturation for dark mode backgrounds, and hue adjustments for color perception errors in color spaces
All of this in my experience needs a lot of eyeballing but quite a lot could probably be approximated with good perceptual light and color models. But I’ll still prefer light mode most of the time.
> Unfortunately, the moment one turns it on, the content goes dark too
This might be an artifact of your screen's limited contrast. Have you tried dark mode on an OLED screen?
This might be an artifact of your screen's limited contrast. Have you tried dark mode on an OLED screen?
They meant that when you turn on Chrome's dark mode (for the browser UI) it also enables `prefers-color-scheme: dark` for websites. These are always synced as far as I know.
Thank you, I edited in (dark chrome) for clarity.
"Chrome" here refers to windows and widgets surrounding content, not the browser specifically.
"Chrome" here refers to windows and widgets surrounding content, not the browser specifically.
Lunar plug
https://lunar.fyi/?source=lowtechguys
Unrelated to dark mode, but is a visual game changer.
People should also take the time out to get appropriate light bulbs for their studies and work desks.
I want to speak more on visual settings in web design and GUIs, but I’m eating some corn chips. In brief, I’m starting to understand that accessibility concerns don’t refer exclusively to people with certain conditions, but even those who want to use computers comfortably.
https://lunar.fyi/?source=lowtechguys
Unrelated to dark mode, but is a visual game changer.
People should also take the time out to get appropriate light bulbs for their studies and work desks.
I want to speak more on visual settings in web design and GUIs, but I’m eating some corn chips. In brief, I’m starting to understand that accessibility concerns don’t refer exclusively to people with certain conditions, but even those who want to use computers comfortably.
>get appropriate light bulbs for their studies and work desks.
What are these?
What are these?
You know like in lamps or light fixtures. Get the right color temperature for your surroundings and needs and what not.
For example, for some deranged reason I felt that it was appropriate to have my entire study engulfed in Daylight lightbulbs. The three bulbs in the ceiling fan and the tall lamp next to my desk. Daylight. I must have figured, “Man, I do a lot of reading”, or something like that. Daylight.
This went on for quite sometime. I would often receive comments about how the lamp would serve better for interrogations, but I kept on with this setup until I got a monitor for my laptop. This required a non-impeding alteration to the layout of my desk. The height and bend of the lamp had to be changed, I had to change how I sat to accommodate how I looked at the monitor, or when I was using both the laptop and monitor. Stuff like that.
It wasn’t until my right eye began to feel dry that I decided to make a change. So I spent some time learning how to choose the right lightbulb. I did not need daylight. I was not in a restroom or operating a security camera. I needed something warmer. So I got something warmer and I use Lunar.
For example, for some deranged reason I felt that it was appropriate to have my entire study engulfed in Daylight lightbulbs. The three bulbs in the ceiling fan and the tall lamp next to my desk. Daylight. I must have figured, “Man, I do a lot of reading”, or something like that. Daylight.
This went on for quite sometime. I would often receive comments about how the lamp would serve better for interrogations, but I kept on with this setup until I got a monitor for my laptop. This required a non-impeding alteration to the layout of my desk. The height and bend of the lamp had to be changed, I had to change how I sat to accommodate how I looked at the monitor, or when I was using both the laptop and monitor. Stuff like that.
It wasn’t until my right eye began to feel dry that I decided to make a change. So I spent some time learning how to choose the right lightbulb. I did not need daylight. I was not in a restroom or operating a security camera. I needed something warmer. So I got something warmer and I use Lunar.
This is why I use colour changing LED bulbs. During the day I have them in the bluer parts of the spectrum, and as the night goes they are automatically switched to warmer colour temps, and dimmer brightness settings.
They're things that you can't get your employer to install in your office.
The conclusion of this article (dark mode is bad for your eyes) seems to contradict the article that is used as the main source. In the source (https://www.nngroup.com/articles/dark-mode/) , light mode is described as possibly associated with myopia (nearsightedness).
>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 a strange argument for dark/light mode. It might be easier to see, but can you imagine how tired your eyes would get if you were looking for/at dark blobs on a hilltop all day? I wouldn't last an hour.
I'm fine with this guy preferring light mode. I've tried them both for many years each and I much prefer dark mode for my own well being.
This is a strange argument for dark/light mode. It might be easier to see, but can you imagine how tired your eyes would get if you were looking for/at dark blobs on a hilltop all day? I wouldn't last an hour.
I'm fine with this guy preferring light mode. I've tried them both for many years each and I much prefer dark mode for my own well being.
Such odd arguments, it's very simple to me. The problem is really that we like to work late, with bad lighting.
All this would be resolved if we had proper lighting, as is mandated in every Swedish office in fact.
But I like working late from home, so I have very poor lighting a lot of times. Therefore bright applications and websites hurt my eyes more than darker ones.
All this would be resolved if we had proper lighting, as is mandated in every Swedish office in fact.
But I like working late from home, so I have very poor lighting a lot of times. Therefore bright applications and websites hurt my eyes more than darker ones.
Every classically trained artist and designer knows the principles of contrast.
Dark-colored text over a light background will result in a higher contrast ratio than the opposite combination.
Design decisions must be objective and based on data.
As an option, the user must have the choice to apply different modes and themes based on A11 for low vision.
For example, the principle of higher contrast (dark-colored text on light background) will be literally painful for people with photophobia.
More on this subject: https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/#light-sensitivity
Dark-colored text over a light background will result in a higher contrast ratio than the opposite combination.
Design decisions must be objective and based on data.
As an option, the user must have the choice to apply different modes and themes based on A11 for low vision.
For example, the principle of higher contrast (dark-colored text on light background) will be literally painful for people with photophobia.
More on this subject: https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/#light-sensitivity
“I like it” seems to be the only justification left for dark mode. Luckily, that’s a perfectly legitimate justification.
As with most "medical" discussions online, something like being "good for your body part" rapidly turns into anything other than scientific medical evidence. Much like how its impossible to discuss something like diet scientifically online.
The fad aspect should not be overlooked. Originally, "light mode" GUIs on CRTs was something of a fools errand because most CRTs are somewhat non-linear so light mode emphasized waviness and interference patterns and outright astigmatism. Occasionally "light mode" was a bragging point that your hardware could handle it and your GUI was designed to cooperate with the limited hardware of the day (think original 80s 90s apples). Around the turn of the century "light mode" became a financial status symbol that you can afford a "perfect" LCD display, so only the coolest people used light mode. Now, 2010 is too old to be stylish so obviously the opposite of light mode is "dark mode" and that is the pinnacle of style because it proves you're using something designed or redesigned post 2015 or so. Just the usual conspicuous consumption oneupsmanship.
Another aspect rarely mentioned is distraction / ADD / working conditions. Obviously dark mode on a glossy screen provides something of a perfect mirror to see your surroundings which is usually distracting to normal people in normal conditions. For those with ADD or easily distracted in a tightly packed open office its practically an ADA issue to force them to use dark mode. If I must have a glossy screen I find it vastly less distracting to use light mode. Turn up the brightness so its not the brightest thing in the room but its brighter than the endlessly moving reflections on the screen and light mode looks pretty good.
The fad aspect should not be overlooked. Originally, "light mode" GUIs on CRTs was something of a fools errand because most CRTs are somewhat non-linear so light mode emphasized waviness and interference patterns and outright astigmatism. Occasionally "light mode" was a bragging point that your hardware could handle it and your GUI was designed to cooperate with the limited hardware of the day (think original 80s 90s apples). Around the turn of the century "light mode" became a financial status symbol that you can afford a "perfect" LCD display, so only the coolest people used light mode. Now, 2010 is too old to be stylish so obviously the opposite of light mode is "dark mode" and that is the pinnacle of style because it proves you're using something designed or redesigned post 2015 or so. Just the usual conspicuous consumption oneupsmanship.
Another aspect rarely mentioned is distraction / ADD / working conditions. Obviously dark mode on a glossy screen provides something of a perfect mirror to see your surroundings which is usually distracting to normal people in normal conditions. For those with ADD or easily distracted in a tightly packed open office its practically an ADA issue to force them to use dark mode. If I must have a glossy screen I find it vastly less distracting to use light mode. Turn up the brightness so its not the brightest thing in the room but its brighter than the endlessly moving reflections on the screen and light mode looks pretty good.
For me having Dark Mode is actually better accessibility-wise. Since I've had cataracts (and the surgery fixing them) years ago my eyes are really sensitive to glare and generally bright lights (especially sun light and lightning flashes¹), meaning reading on screens in light mode makes my eyes and head hurt within minutes.
¹: which ever since having my natural lenses replaced by synthetic ones appear violet to me instead of the bluish-white before
¹: which ever since having my natural lenses replaced by synthetic ones appear violet to me instead of the bluish-white before
Several years ago, after reading about how claims of dark mode being beneficial were usually bullshit, I switched to light mode for everything and just making sure I have lights turned on where I'm at. It's great!
The light vs dark mode topic has come up several times on HN in the last few years, and it seems for one group that it is a religious conflict. That group seems especially (and aggressively) vocal in rejecting any observations or opinions from the other side.
Each should use what they like, and eyes (and the brains that they depend on) are pretty unique. Therefore, I would not expect any two people to look at the same thing and agree completely on what they see - or how they feel about it.
I do wish the dark mode proponents would accept that recording video or presenting in dark mode is usually a bad idea for two primary reasons.
1. Viewers may be in environments with high ambient light. Dark mode, viewed in a very bright environment, can be difficult or even impossible to see if the ambient brightness is very high. If it's a video on youtube, the viewer can choose to watch it another time when it's not so bright. (But that viewer may never return to view it later, so you've lost a viewer for whatever effort you put in.)
My favorite example of when not to use dark mode is in conferences or live presentations. Projectors produce much dimmer output than monitors do, and most conferences are not given in total darkness. This is especially true if the environment has windows, such as an office meeting space. So keep this in mind if you are a presenter. You could put a lot of effort into making nice slides and having some animations, but your live audience may be practically unable to see most of it.
2. Video/image compression tends to result in poorer output for lower contrast content like dark mode syntax highlighted text. One can plainly see the loss of quality of syntax highlighted code text on dark mode video or stills.
The net result is, again, that your audience gets less benefit from your content creation effort. That's a shame for everyone.
Each should use what they like, and eyes (and the brains that they depend on) are pretty unique. Therefore, I would not expect any two people to look at the same thing and agree completely on what they see - or how they feel about it.
I do wish the dark mode proponents would accept that recording video or presenting in dark mode is usually a bad idea for two primary reasons.
1. Viewers may be in environments with high ambient light. Dark mode, viewed in a very bright environment, can be difficult or even impossible to see if the ambient brightness is very high. If it's a video on youtube, the viewer can choose to watch it another time when it's not so bright. (But that viewer may never return to view it later, so you've lost a viewer for whatever effort you put in.)
My favorite example of when not to use dark mode is in conferences or live presentations. Projectors produce much dimmer output than monitors do, and most conferences are not given in total darkness. This is especially true if the environment has windows, such as an office meeting space. So keep this in mind if you are a presenter. You could put a lot of effort into making nice slides and having some animations, but your live audience may be practically unable to see most of it.
2. Video/image compression tends to result in poorer output for lower contrast content like dark mode syntax highlighted text. One can plainly see the loss of quality of syntax highlighted code text on dark mode video or stills.
The net result is, again, that your audience gets less benefit from your content creation effort. That's a shame for everyone.
> Viewers may be in environments with high ambient light. Dark mode, viewed in a very bright environment, can be difficult or even impossible to see if the ambient brightness is very high.
Viewers may also be in environments with low ambient light, where staring into a white light is painful.
> Video/image compression tends to result in poorer output for lower contrast content
Contrast and dark mode are two separate issues. Most popular dark themes are low-contrast for some reason, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Viewers may also be in environments with low ambient light, where staring into a white light is painful.
> Video/image compression tends to result in poorer output for lower contrast content
Contrast and dark mode are two separate issues. Most popular dark themes are low-contrast for some reason, but it doesn't have to be that way.
> Viewers may also be in environments with low ambient light, where staring into a white light is painful.
I find that turning my phone/laptop/monitor brightness down as needed solves that problem. Conversely, however, I often find myself trying to turn my phone brightness up when it is already at maximum, and sadly I still can't see the content (because the ambient light is too strong).
There is a reason Google Maps switches between light and dark mode based on ambient light sensor. I challenge anyone to use maps in dark mode on a sunny day; there is no device bright enough to make dark mode content visible outside. It would also be absurd to burn so much energy trying to make thin colored lines and text be as bright as the opposite - dark lines on light background.
> Most popular dark themes are low-contrast for some reason, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Probably because viewing the highest contrast dark mode color schemes is more painful than switching to light mode and dimming the monitor.
I find that turning my phone/laptop/monitor brightness down as needed solves that problem. Conversely, however, I often find myself trying to turn my phone brightness up when it is already at maximum, and sadly I still can't see the content (because the ambient light is too strong).
There is a reason Google Maps switches between light and dark mode based on ambient light sensor. I challenge anyone to use maps in dark mode on a sunny day; there is no device bright enough to make dark mode content visible outside. It would also be absurd to burn so much energy trying to make thin colored lines and text be as bright as the opposite - dark lines on light background.
> Most popular dark themes are low-contrast for some reason, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Probably because viewing the highest contrast dark mode color schemes is more painful than switching to light mode and dimming the monitor.
> I find that turning my phone/laptop/monitor brightness down as needed solves that problem.
Turning down brightness this much makes the content less readable, especially when it's low-contrast.
> There is a reason Google Maps switches between light and dark mode based on ambient light sensor. I challenge anyone to use maps in dark mode on a sunny day; there is no device bright enough to make dark mode content visible outside
I'm pretty sure I always use Google Maps in dark mode.
> It would also be absurd to burn so much energy trying to make thin colored lines and text be as bright as the opposite - dark lines on light background.
On AMOLED screens, dark mode saves energy.
> Probably because viewing the highest contrast dark mode color schemes is more painful than switching to light mode and dimming the monitor.
Not for me.
Turning down brightness this much makes the content less readable, especially when it's low-contrast.
> There is a reason Google Maps switches between light and dark mode based on ambient light sensor. I challenge anyone to use maps in dark mode on a sunny day; there is no device bright enough to make dark mode content visible outside
I'm pretty sure I always use Google Maps in dark mode.
> It would also be absurd to burn so much energy trying to make thin colored lines and text be as bright as the opposite - dark lines on light background.
On AMOLED screens, dark mode saves energy.
> Probably because viewing the highest contrast dark mode color schemes is more painful than switching to light mode and dimming the monitor.
Not for me.
I’d say it’s a religious issue for both groups. There are people on both sides of the fence who just want to use what’s comfortable (or use both situationally), and be left alone about it. Then there are those in both camps who want to convert others…
The dark mode proponents have a better reason to try to convert people: so they can actually use dark mode more. It's only been fairly recently that dark mode was even an option in most things, unless you just installed Linux and used a terminal all day long. The light mode proponents have never had this problem since the days of Windows 3.1. This isn't a case of just using what you prefer, because dark mode simply hasn't been available in most software, and still isn't (or isn't done very well) many times.
It's similar to how Linux users appeared to make it a religious issue 10-25 years ago. Linux needed mindshare to be usable, or else you wouldn't have access to the software you needed to actually use Linux daily, so of course Linux proponents needed to push it hard so they could get support and mindshare. If all the software companies had "simply" made Linux versions of everything, so that anyone could simply choose Linux over Windows/Mac, this wouldn't have been necessary.
It's similar to how Linux users appeared to make it a religious issue 10-25 years ago. Linux needed mindshare to be usable, or else you wouldn't have access to the software you needed to actually use Linux daily, so of course Linux proponents needed to push it hard so they could get support and mindshare. If all the software companies had "simply" made Linux versions of everything, so that anyone could simply choose Linux over Windows/Mac, this wouldn't have been necessary.
That doesn’t seem to be the case, with the people I’m referring to. It’s one thing to want availability. It’s another to try to shove your preferences down someone else’s throat, because, you know, they’re clearly superior. And because “science” and stuff.
See comments on this article pro light mode, about people living in goblin caves or such. On the other hand, people will literally mock you for using Discord in light mode.
Ideally, everyone would have the options they wanted available to them, use them, and stfu about it and get on with life. In reality, though, people would still be fighting holy wars over it…
See comments on this article pro light mode, about people living in goblin caves or such. On the other hand, people will literally mock you for using Discord in light mode.
Ideally, everyone would have the options they wanted available to them, use them, and stfu about it and get on with life. In reality, though, people would still be fighting holy wars over it…
Nature says yes:
„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.“
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
„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.“
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
On AMOLED display I using dark background almost everywhere, fortunately most apps have option to switch to true black theme. I also recommend plugin Dark Reader for Firefox browsers.
Similar story is for desktop except true black is not necessary and I prefer dark gray background for less contrast with font. White 27' monitor at evening is heavy for my eyes, even with 25% brightness, that I need for keeping calibration values.
Filter of blue light on phone is also very usefull at evening, I get easily tired.
However... For example for photography portfolios on web I prefer white background, especially for BW. I guess it reminds me more natural, paper white bacground, like prints has.
So it depends...
Similar story is for desktop except true black is not necessary and I prefer dark gray background for less contrast with font. White 27' monitor at evening is heavy for my eyes, even with 25% brightness, that I need for keeping calibration values.
Filter of blue light on phone is also very usefull at evening, I get easily tired.
However... For example for photography portfolios on web I prefer white background, especially for BW. I guess it reminds me more natural, paper white bacground, like prints has.
So it depends...
I absolutely loath dark mode.
My eyes hurt after 1 or 2 minutes when I am forced to read things in dark mode. I even installed a plugin in Firefox to disable dark mode on sites that don't allow this (or do not support "reading mode" properly)
My eyes hurt after 1 or 2 minutes when I am forced to read things in dark mode. I even installed a plugin in Firefox to disable dark mode on sites that don't allow this (or do not support "reading mode" properly)
And my eyes hurt after 1-2 minutes when I am forced to use light mode. My life is better after realizing this.
Clearly everyone is different. It's discouraging to see the number of people in this thread not understanding this. I'm glad the general consensus in technology is to offer us customization.
Clearly everyone is different. It's discouraging to see the number of people in this thread not understanding this. I'm glad the general consensus in technology is to offer us customization.
> 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.
Depending on the file I guess mini-LED could also consume less power with a dark theme, right? If a whole region could be dimmed.
Is it true that an OLED displaying a dark color uses the same amount of power as one displaying a light color? I mean, clearly to get the full benefit you have to do full-black for the background, but I’d assume dark red should be less power than white.
The main reason I side dark mode though is that text on a black OLED in a totally dark room appears to just be floating there, which is cool looking.
Depending on the file I guess mini-LED could also consume less power with a dark theme, right? If a whole region could be dimmed.
Is it true that an OLED displaying a dark color uses the same amount of power as one displaying a light color? I mean, clearly to get the full benefit you have to do full-black for the background, but I’d assume dark red should be less power than white.
The main reason I side dark mode though is that text on a black OLED in a totally dark room appears to just be floating there, which is cool looking.
Seems right for microleds. However two years ago they weren't much of a thing for consumers. I think they still aren't in any significant way? Samsung has those massive microled tvs but I thought oled still reigned as the current king.
Err, I think I was thinking of mini-leds (edited in). Which are the ones that, for example, Apple uses in their laptops?
Personally, I find using f.lux and running all screens at 10-20% brightness more pleasant than dark mode.
Depending of course on the individual screen, so occasionally it can be higher. And my phone outdoors on a sunny day may very well be at 100%.
Depending of course on the individual screen, so occasionally it can be higher. And my phone outdoors on a sunny day may very well be at 100%.
Same. I'm no doctor here but setting screen brightness to ambient level (typically low at 20-30%) with proper contrast can't be underestimated. And Flux or "night light" 24/7 to cut the blue.
I have been using an extension called "Dark Reader" which essentially converts every website into dark mode. I wasn't aware of the scientific and health concerns regarding dark mode.
I do now realize that all websites don't necessarily have a black background. While I consider the website's points about dark mode, I disagree. Dark mode is easier to read - atleast for me and others.
If a website doesn't have a dark mode, extensions always work. Maybe for some people like the author, light mode is better and that's a personal preference.
I do now realize that all websites don't necessarily have a black background. While I consider the website's points about dark mode, I disagree. Dark mode is easier to read - atleast for me and others.
If a website doesn't have a dark mode, extensions always work. Maybe for some people like the author, light mode is better and that's a personal preference.
There is no definitive answer to this question, as different people may have different experiences with using dark mode. Some people find that dark mode helps reduce eye strain, while others may find it more difficult to read text on a dark background. Ultimately, the best way to determine if dark mode is good for your eyes is to try it out for yourself and see how it affects your eyesight. If you notice any discomfort or difficulty reading, you may want to switch back to a lighter color scheme.
I can attest that if you are a migraineur, these things absolutely make a difference. When mine are borderline or I am recovering, changing the colour and redshift on my monitors can make the difference between being able to do some work and triggering a full blown headache. It's as noticeable as someone turning up the volume on a sound to me.
Whether it matters to all the people all the time is a different question. But it 100% makes a big difference to many people.
Whether it matters to all the people all the time is a different question. But it 100% makes a big difference to many people.
If you're saying blue light is actually a leading cause of eye strain, then how can you conclude that dark mode doesn't help with that? A large white background has significantly more blue light than a black or gray background. It is already known that dark text on a light background is easier to read in general, but with all the blue lights shining in your eyes it is certainly worth it to toggle dark mode throughout the day to let your eyes rest. The light text on a dark background should not be difficult to read if the environment outside the screen is bright enough. Your point about fine details becoming washed through dilation is true, but only relevant if you are reading in the dark. In which case turning on a light fixes that issue entirely.
Dark Mode _is_ good for your eyes, especially if you are feeling fatigued from reading so much text in light mode. Get a toggle dark mode reader for your browser! You don't have to choose one or* the other, but rather toggle as your eyes are feeling fatigued, or take a walk.
Dark Mode _is_ good for your eyes, especially if you are feeling fatigued from reading so much text in light mode. Get a toggle dark mode reader for your browser! You don't have to choose one or* the other, but rather toggle as your eyes are feeling fatigued, or take a walk.
Only discuss dark mode in coding, there are so many famous dark themes, but most of them are not suitable for use at night, for instance: nord, dracula, vscode's github dark, vscode's github dimmed dark(but it is perfect in the github's website, some key differences between them), all vscode's built-in dark themes and so on.
They're terrible, because they use very bright colors for highlight or improper contrast or author's aesthetics:
1. The bright color in dark mode just like a car coming to you in the dark stabbing your eyes with its huge headlights.
2. The improper contrast may be that they do not turn on the lights at night?
3. The essence of code is text, the readability of text is always the first, aesthetics is secondary, the nord theme is elegant and clean, I like it but I will never use it for reading or coding.
Dark mode is not intended for you to use in a purely dark environment, we need light at night even if you don't believe in god.
Here are some positive examples: "Atom One Dark Theme" and "Solarized Dark Vim" in vscode, jetbrains Darcula(not dracula, which is the object of criticism above).
So before answering the question of the title, we need to think: What should a correctly implemented dark mode look like?
They're terrible, because they use very bright colors for highlight or improper contrast or author's aesthetics:
1. The bright color in dark mode just like a car coming to you in the dark stabbing your eyes with its huge headlights.
2. The improper contrast may be that they do not turn on the lights at night?
3. The essence of code is text, the readability of text is always the first, aesthetics is secondary, the nord theme is elegant and clean, I like it but I will never use it for reading or coding.
Dark mode is not intended for you to use in a purely dark environment, we need light at night even if you don't believe in god.
Here are some positive examples: "Atom One Dark Theme" and "Solarized Dark Vim" in vscode, jetbrains Darcula(not dracula, which is the object of criticism above).
So before answering the question of the title, we need to think: What should a correctly implemented dark mode look like?
I switched Emacs back to light mode because light mode is, objectively, easier to read.
One thing that helps with the "staring into a glowing rectangle of doom" thing is not having the background set to bright white. I was messing about with old Solaris when I found its terminal windows were much easier to read than xterm's white default. So I set my Emacs background to "OldLace" (#fdf5e6) rather than plain white.
One thing that helps with the "staring into a glowing rectangle of doom" thing is not having the background set to bright white. I was messing about with old Solaris when I found its terminal windows were much easier to read than xterm's white default. So I set my Emacs background to "OldLace" (#fdf5e6) rather than plain white.
Dark mode is harder to read, especially after a long day. But my wife has a light sleep and surfing light mode at night while being in bed is not an option.
It's a bad idea, health-wise, to use a bed for anything other than sleeping or cuddling/sex.
Put the electronics in a different room. Go in the bedroom when it's time for bed. Leave the bedroom when it's not.
Sleep hygiene is important.
Put the electronics in a different room. Go in the bedroom when it's time for bed. Leave the bedroom when it's not.
Sleep hygiene is important.
I use "light" mode in daytime (most of my programming time), and "dark" mode at night (mostly on my phone). Works fine for me.
Thanks to inspiration from Freek van der Herten, I switched to light mode. At the time, I didn’t appreciate the importance of minimizing the relative change of color when switching apps.
Most of the websites I build are light, so using a light theme keeps things more consistent when switching back and forth. I don’t think light or dark makes much difference but the consistency helps me.
Most of the websites I build are light, so using a light theme keeps things more consistent when switching back and forth. I don’t think light or dark makes much difference but the consistency helps me.
The consistency is why I’m playing with light mode again. I’d stick with dark mode if all websites respected it. But many don’t— including HN! I’m tired of having random, blinding moments throughout the day.
I thought that was obvious and dark mode was a meme about gamers not having sunlight while having their monitors set at maximum brightness so they use dark mode to reduce glare. Like the whole sunlight is burning, quick close the blinds joke.
OLED mode on my phone is definitely a treat for battery life, but then darker actually means less light instead of dark coloured light.
OLED mode on my phone is definitely a treat for battery life, but then darker actually means less light instead of dark coloured light.
Nitpick - both OLED and regular LED monitors emit less light when the screen is dark/black. The LED monitor is doing it less efficiently (because the LCD screen is blocking the backlight), but it's not "dark coloured light."
If room is totally dark, there is no brightness level that is comfortable in light mode, due to high contrast with ambient. It here is simply too much area lit up.
I just think dark mode is prettier.
Light mode works better for me and that's what I use. But dark mode is definitely prettier.
I do prefer dark one but I found out man dark themes are just plainly made badly.
Between bad contrast (I'm looking at you Solarized dark) and just picking plainly too dark background most dark themes are just bad. I wonder if that might've skewed results, kinda hard to make objective "best light/dark theme"
Between bad contrast (I'm looking at you Solarized dark) and just picking plainly too dark background most dark themes are just bad. I wonder if that might've skewed results, kinda hard to make objective "best light/dark theme"
Solarized has the same contrast relationships in both modes, though. That’s kind of the point.
This article seems to equate dark mode with white text on black background. I tend to see dark kodes more complex than that, specifically with yellow text on a dark background which is what I tend to prefer. Ive always liked darcula themes for coding because of the variety of contrasts are better for me.
Worth noting I'm also red/green color blind, which might matter.
I've read a couple of other posts about this (below) so I finally decided to give light mode a try for a week.
I've switched to all Solarized Light terminal/editor/Firefox/GTK and turned off dark mode in the websites where that's a setting.
https://stitcher.io/blog/why-light-themes-are-better-accordi...
https://medium.com/codesphere-cloud/should-you-really-be-cod...
I've switched to all Solarized Light terminal/editor/Firefox/GTK and turned off dark mode in the websites where that's a setting.
https://stitcher.io/blog/why-light-themes-are-better-accordi...
https://medium.com/codesphere-cloud/should-you-really-be-cod...
Funny, I can't stand Solaris and usually want more contrast. Most light themes for code editors follow a low contrast uniform hue approach and I just don't jive with that.
I've ended up liking Visual Studio Blue a lot for VSCode:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=DanijelM...
Then again, I think most new light themes are just designed wrong:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33961645
I've ended up liking Visual Studio Blue a lot for VSCode:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=DanijelM...
Then again, I think most new light themes are just designed wrong:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33961645
Solarized Light was my gateway drug to light mode, and I later switched over to using Modus Operandi in Emacs, which really made me appreciate proper light themes. If you use Emacs and/or Konsole you may like it.
That's cool. I've looked at the Modus themes before but I think the light version is a bit too light for me. All-white pages are so bright they kinda hurt my eyes. Maybe I need to turn the monitor brightness down...
I see this research says white font on dark background is beneficial for myopia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x
I prefer light mode most of the time, but where I am sitting is dark enough, often enough - that I need to switch off to mostly-dark mode. I'll keep whatever I am reading in a lowered brightness.
DARK READER extension for Firefox (and other browser) have a mode for both. You can set light mode with lowered brightness - white stays white, but is much less glaring.
Another anecdata key factor here is - too many people have their fonts set too small, myself included. I find that when I turn up the font sizes, my eye strains far less irrespective of my dark/light mode settings.
DARK READER extension for Firefox (and other browser) have a mode for both. You can set light mode with lowered brightness - white stays white, but is much less glaring.
Another anecdata key factor here is - too many people have their fonts set too small, myself included. I find that when I turn up the font sizes, my eye strains far less irrespective of my dark/light mode settings.
Anecdote here, but any time I use dark mode even for a few minutes, it makes my eyes feel awful, and leaves ghostly shadows of text lines in my vision for up to a minute or two after leaving the screen. Reading anything in light mode on the other hand doesn't cause me much trouble even after hours of doing it nearly without interruption.. I have a hard time believing that i'm the only one. Personally, I detest dark mode and have never understood why so many people recommend it.
In my stint in factory automation, the night mode vs day mode acceptance dependent heavily on the light properties inside the factory. With flooding daylight, the only thing acceptable was light mode, with artificial light - controlled light, usually used to decouple the workers from theire feeling of time or in nightshifts, the dark mode was prefered.
So my theory is, dark mode is prefered, were irregular times or crunch is prefered. Lightmode is in open, daylit offices or home offices, were you value & keep track of your time and life.
So my theory is, dark mode is prefered, were irregular times or crunch is prefered. Lightmode is in open, daylit offices or home offices, were you value & keep track of your time and life.
If there's one thing I got tired of doing over two decades is changing settings. I switch machines often enough, so I just use the defaults.
Eclipse: light mode Android Studio: light mode. IntelliJ: light mode VS Code: dark mode Text editing: light mode vim: dark mode (depends)
Windows cmd: black background MacOS terminal: white background, unless I bother to launch a Pro themed window. Linux (Ubuntu): black terminal, white FreeBSD: black
Whatever is there. The only customization I do is I manually edit my .vimrc and dump settings from memory.
My eyes are doing fine, no glasses so far.
Eclipse: light mode Android Studio: light mode. IntelliJ: light mode VS Code: dark mode Text editing: light mode vim: dark mode (depends)
Windows cmd: black background MacOS terminal: white background, unless I bother to launch a Pro themed window. Linux (Ubuntu): black terminal, white FreeBSD: black
Whatever is there. The only customization I do is I manually edit my .vimrc and dump settings from memory.
My eyes are doing fine, no glasses so far.
BTW, the Astronomy community has known the correct answer forever, which is to ONLY use red light.
This is achievable on OLED phones using software like (on android) Cf.Lumen, and setting it to a full redshift mode.
You will notice literally ZERO eye strain, even in the middle of the night, when you use this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_effects_of_high-ene...
This is achievable on OLED phones using software like (on android) Cf.Lumen, and setting it to a full redshift mode.
You will notice literally ZERO eye strain, even in the middle of the night, when you use this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_effects_of_high-ene...
Check this out.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x.pdf
Black on white causes myopia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x.pdf
Black on white causes myopia.
I thought HN (aka dang) agreed to add a dark mode:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199062
Am I missing something?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199062
Am I missing something?
Right now I’m reading HN on an iPad set to invert colors to make it dark. Settings -> Accessibility -> Accessibility Shortcut -> Classic Invert. With that on I can use triple click on the home button to toggle it.
I have special version of context-aware-auto-brightness for the bedside computer. It is the best IMHO. It keeps the brightness just within the right limits. Dark modes are boosted just right and switching from dark to bright does not burn retinas. https://github.com/timonoko/Context-Aware-Auto-Brightness/bl...
There is an important factor that is almost always ignored in the discussion: the screen/monitor size. I use a LG 27" Monitor on my working place and the amount of light that is emitted in light mode is literally blinding (as in snow-blind). Turning down brightness enough to become bearable badly affects contrast and chromaticity. That is the good thing on dark mode: that colorful content remains unaffected.
For me it is dark mode on large screens and light mode on phones and tablets.
For me it is dark mode on large screens and light mode on phones and tablets.
Those night light tools (flux etc) don’t remove that much blue light. Reducing light output (eg by, ahem, using dark mode) is the surest way to reduce blue light emissions.
Precisely. TFA misses this point completely: "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."
I simply use both, checkmate.
I simply use both, checkmate.
Am I the only one that kinda doesn't care either way?
I just want consistency so my eyes don't have to adjust between apps/sites and enough contrast for legibility (WCAG says 4.5:1).
I just want consistency so my eyes don't have to adjust between apps/sites and enough contrast for legibility (WCAG says 4.5:1).
Light mode with healthy brightness and color temperature is superior to dark mode. I think dark mode is great until you figure out you can change the brightness on your display.
[deleted]
I'm reading this thread with css adjustments from the Dark Reader Firefox extension that I just learned about a few weeks ago, and damn, I am soooo happy with it.
I feel it is better for my eyes in all environments than bright mode. I am very nearsighted.
But, both modes hurt your eyes as long as you have to read on screen or even on paper. My aunt used to be pretty nearsighted as a student (-6.00 on both eyes), after she graduated and started a job that only required a little reading, her vision improved dramatically to better than -1.50 within a year. A few years later she completely got rid of eye glasses.
But, both modes hurt your eyes as long as you have to read on screen or even on paper. My aunt used to be pretty nearsighted as a student (-6.00 on both eyes), after she graduated and started a job that only required a little reading, her vision improved dramatically to better than -1.50 within a year. A few years later she completely got rid of eye glasses.
I think I often prefer dark mode; but some user interfaces just get it wrong, and I find it harder to "get" the topography of the application windows.
Dark Mode is definitely helpful when I'm reading late at night or early in the morning. I don't think any number of generic studies (not focusing on those use cases) would negate my own cognitive perception. YMMV, but mine sure doesn't!
I do find that Dark Mode is not helpful in bright sunlight, and can lead to my iPhone screen acting like a mirror, which is not good. But that doesn't stop me from using it at night!
I do find that Dark Mode is not helpful in bright sunlight, and can lead to my iPhone screen acting like a mirror, which is not good. But that doesn't stop me from using it at night!
Photons was only mentioned 4 times at the time of this writing. I appreciate low frequency waves when my eyes are adjusted to those low frequencies. Same as another would high frequency. Is my red the same as yours? My blue is very significant; in this way we experience colors.
For my MacBook I keep “night shift” on at all times along with dark mode. I’ve not had an issue of eye strain since I switched to doing it a couple years ago. Occasionally I’ll switch back to light mode but find I am having to keep dimming the display as my eyes adjust to the new level. Never quite feeling comfortable. I know some have had success with those blue light glasses in terms of eye strain.
Some people have photosensitivity, such as those with lighter colored irises.
HN needs to add dark mode. Until then, I've been using this theme with the Stylus addon. Way better!
https://userstyles.world/style/1898/hacker-news-dynamic-dark
HN needs to add dark mode. Until then, I've been using this theme with the Stylus addon. Way better!
https://userstyles.world/style/1898/hacker-news-dynamic-dark
I'm happy with both dark and light mode as long as I'm not forced to switch back and forth between the two modes.
Some people, self included, may find that dark mode is easier on their eyes because it reduces the amount of blue light that is emitted by the screen. Blue light can cause eye strain and fatigue, so reducing the amount of blue light can help to make your screen more comfortable to look at.
For me the Nord theme of greyish blue has been better than pure dark mode or blue coloured Solarized theme either.
Thankfully twitter has this as an option as well. But I'm all for companies having 4 presets & one all out custom themeing if customers prefer it- White, Off-white/paper, dark(OLED black) & Nord(blue-grey)
Thankfully twitter has this as an option as well. But I'm all for companies having 4 presets & one all out custom themeing if customers prefer it- White, Off-white/paper, dark(OLED black) & Nord(blue-grey)
I have a degenerative corneal disease and dark mode is hands down the best trend in interface design in recent memory (its gotten to the point where I use Tampermonkey scripts to force invert pages to help legibility.)
In any case, whether its a trend, saves battery, helps or hurts the eyes, I can certainly say its a great accessibility feature.
In any case, whether its a trend, saves battery, helps or hurts the eyes, I can certainly say its a great accessibility feature.
Changes are good!
Sometime, when I want a change of perspective, I switch to different theme for a couple of days/weeks/months and then change again, and again, and again...
I've noticed just changing the theme can help refocus.
It is a bit like changing the layout of your house to bring changes to your life.
(only it's so much easier with M-x customize-theme)
Sometime, when I want a change of perspective, I switch to different theme for a couple of days/weeks/months and then change again, and again, and again...
I've noticed just changing the theme can help refocus.
It is a bit like changing the layout of your house to bring changes to your life.
(only it's so much easier with M-x customize-theme)
Dark mode is a good shibboleth for who’s old. I’ve seen it working with people under 30. All the young folk have dark mode. The old folk mostly use light, with some using dark high contrast. If you have an interview with a person and they use light, it can be a proxy for age to help weed out the gray beards.
Dark mode is good for my relationship when I have to work late – and not fill the entire bedroom with bright light.
Dark mode doesn't work for me, probably due to astigmatism.
But working most of the day in front of the screen causes eye strain. So, I tried `redshift` and that helped. These days I keep it at 3000K all the time. And I found that reading on my big computer screen with redshift is less straining compared to Kindle.
But working most of the day in front of the screen causes eye strain. So, I tried `redshift` and that helped. These days I keep it at 3000K all the time. And I found that reading on my big computer screen with redshift is less straining compared to Kindle.
So many people are complaining about astigmatism here. I have it too, and I use dark mode just fine.
Do your corrective lenses not correct for astigmatism?
Do your corrective lenses not correct for astigmatism?
Is it good for your eyes? No, but is it bad/destructive - definitely not. So that leaves it up to personal preference.
The article seems to try to make an argument that non-darkmode is better, but the gap is so tiny it reminds me of the Coleman, Dvorak, QWERTY, etc arguments.
The differences are so tiny just do what you want.
The article seems to try to make an argument that non-darkmode is better, but the gap is so tiny it reminds me of the Coleman, Dvorak, QWERTY, etc arguments.
The differences are so tiny just do what you want.
I didn't like dark mode since the beginning, it was too much effort on my eyes. During the day, the room is well lit, why do we need a dark mode at all. And when it is night, we probably shouldn't be working. Or at least switch on the lights, we wouldn't want a dark mode then.
I am so "addicted" to dark mode that I plain refuse to use any software which doesn't offer it, or there is no alternative to workaround change it, like DarkReader for web pages or other "hacks" like we had to for Slack back in the day.
I use dark mode because it masks all the damn floaters in my eyes, whereas light mode accentuates them.
Dark mode became popular in part because interface designers have decided to move away from the Windows 9x era black text on grey background theme to dark grey text on white background, causing the screen to become fully white and thus very bright.
Sadly no conclusion in the discussion here, other than many different opinions. It is important and I feel good to read in dark mode. But really want to nail it.
Did try to get yellow light e-ink but not as nice as reading on ipad.
Continue to struggle then.
Did try to get yellow light e-ink but not as nice as reading on ipad.
Continue to struggle then.
Automatic dark/light mode tracking sunset/sunrise is the best of both worlds IMHO.
Just turn the brightness down... that's the real 'dark' mode.
100% agree with using night shift/flux.
But having a monitor on in the dark, even if I use flux/night vision and even with low brightness physically hurts my eyes compared to just using dark mode on my apps.
But having a monitor on in the dark, even if I use flux/night vision and even with low brightness physically hurts my eyes compared to just using dark mode on my apps.
Sample size of 1 but dark mode is a godsend when I'm on the verge of a migraine. Being flash-banged every time I go to a website is a quick trip to pain and nausea town.
Personally I think dark mode looks cooler and less "ancient IDE"-ish.
But I always end up switching back to a light theme because it feels depressing to look at a dark screen all day.
But I always end up switching back to a light theme because it feels depressing to look at a dark screen all day.
Nothing screams tech bro like "I used to be one of those techbros who did <thing I just stopped doing>"
Source: I got "very pure" on the tech bro purity test
Source: I got "very pure" on the tech bro purity test
I'd like to agree, and elaborate.
The use of the "tech bro" stereotype in the article really rubs me the wrong way. It's a complete rhetorical low blow.
It's identifying the opposite of the author's opinion with a group, and then portraying that group in a way so that the reader would rather distance themselves from that group than identify with that group. This triggers in-group/out-group psychology along the lines of: "My enemy's enemy must be my friend", or "My opinion should probably be the opposite of the opinion held by people I don't like." ...an obvious logical fallacy.
In the compound "tech bro" it's actually the word "bro" that does the heavylifting to make the group unsympathetic. The rhetoric wouldn't work with "techies", but would work equally well with "frat bro". Outside of the U.S., "bro" is not even a readily recognizable cultural stereotype at all. For example people in the tech sector in Europe who are in their 50s and who like how dark mode reminds them of IBM terminals that existed back when they were young might have a preference for dark mode, but they surely don't fit the stereotype of a "tech bro". Young people into gaming aesthetics might like it too, but they aren't always tech bros.
Preferences for light mode / dark mode are pretty much subjective personal preferences or maybe to some extent culturally ingrained, but in a way that has little or nothing to do with being a "bro". It's like saying: "So you like to have a lot of black on your screen? Do you know who else liked black? Mussolini! So, do you still want all that black on your screen now, like a fascist pig? Or do you do what I tell you to do now, and set your screen mode to light?"
The use of the "tech bro" stereotype in the article really rubs me the wrong way. It's a complete rhetorical low blow.
It's identifying the opposite of the author's opinion with a group, and then portraying that group in a way so that the reader would rather distance themselves from that group than identify with that group. This triggers in-group/out-group psychology along the lines of: "My enemy's enemy must be my friend", or "My opinion should probably be the opposite of the opinion held by people I don't like." ...an obvious logical fallacy.
In the compound "tech bro" it's actually the word "bro" that does the heavylifting to make the group unsympathetic. The rhetoric wouldn't work with "techies", but would work equally well with "frat bro". Outside of the U.S., "bro" is not even a readily recognizable cultural stereotype at all. For example people in the tech sector in Europe who are in their 50s and who like how dark mode reminds them of IBM terminals that existed back when they were young might have a preference for dark mode, but they surely don't fit the stereotype of a "tech bro". Young people into gaming aesthetics might like it too, but they aren't always tech bros.
Preferences for light mode / dark mode are pretty much subjective personal preferences or maybe to some extent culturally ingrained, but in a way that has little or nothing to do with being a "bro". It's like saying: "So you like to have a lot of black on your screen? Do you know who else liked black? Mussolini! So, do you still want all that black on your screen now, like a fascist pig? Or do you do what I tell you to do now, and set your screen mode to light?"
Excellent elaboration, thanks!
You eloquently summed up exactly the thought process & distaste I experienced but in a way which adds some conversational pithiness rather than the pablum of my throwaway jest.
10 points to gryffindor!
You eloquently summed up exactly the thought process & distaste I experienced but in a way which adds some conversational pithiness rather than the pablum of my throwaway jest.
10 points to gryffindor!
I have trouble reading dark screen mode. Maybe because I am old?
When I pair program or someone is screen sharing on zoom, I need to ask for the other person to switch modes.
That said, dark themes look cool.
When I pair program or someone is screen sharing on zoom, I need to ask for the other person to switch modes.
That said, dark themes look cool.
Counter point - as I've gotten older, I find dark mode much easier on the eyes. But it depends on the time of day, and how much lighting is actually available.
Found this cartoon on the topic https://imgur.com/QN1t9d4
> A dark blob on a light background is far easier for the human eye to see, than the reverse.
The reverse, a blob of light on a dark background, is the MOST visible thing.
I stopped reading there.
The reverse, a blob of light on a dark background, is the MOST visible thing.
I stopped reading there.
Yeah, I took issue with that as well.
To be fair, I’d say they’re both easy to see. However, given a daytime silhouette vs. a bright light at night, the silhouette has many other blobs competing for attention.
To be fair, I’d say they’re both easy to see. However, given a daytime silhouette vs. a bright light at night, the silhouette has many other blobs competing for attention.
Dark mode is unusable for me, maybe because of the slight astigmatism in one of my eyes. What works is bright mode, warmer colors, and lowering the brightness.
[deleted]
It might not best for your eyes, but it is also not good for the health (for those who are diagnosed with migraine probably understand what I mean)
I have a bunch of eye floaters in both eyes.
If I read text without dark mode enabled I see the floaters hopping from word to word as if I’m singing in a karaoke bar.
If I read text without dark mode enabled I see the floaters hopping from word to word as if I’m singing in a karaoke bar.
The astigmatism point is interesting.
I cannot tolerate more than a page of dead tree books before getting into a major headache situation.
Some sort of back-lit magnifier is needed.
Any suggestions?
I cannot tolerate more than a page of dead tree books before getting into a major headache situation.
Some sort of back-lit magnifier is needed.
Any suggestions?
It's the contrast that matters!
Black on white hurts
White on black hurts
I use dark gray on light olive (sort of like HN's background). But light gray on dark gray works fine too.
Black on white hurts
White on black hurts
I use dark gray on light olive (sort of like HN's background). But light gray on dark gray works fine too.
Differences of dark and white for eyes are so minimal that debates on effects between a specific color of screen don't matter at all.
I think something might be wrong with my eyes but if I use dark mode even for a couple minutes and look away it causes some kinda ghosting.
> A nice dark screen with light text is easier to read, right? Well, according to multiple studies, that’s wrong apparently
In this sentence, I feel like I witnessed the author ascend straight up his own ass. Author is basically saying:
“Objective studies show that [subjective topic] is actually…”
> This post is day 04 of my #100DaysToOffload challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from https://100daystooffload.com.
Ah, so it’s trendy yuppycore bs. That explains it.
In this sentence, I feel like I witnessed the author ascend straight up his own ass. Author is basically saying:
“Objective studies show that [subjective topic] is actually…”
> This post is day 04 of my #100DaysToOffload challenge. If you want to get involved, you can get more info from https://100daystooffload.com.
Ah, so it’s trendy yuppycore bs. That explains it.
Dark mode is slightly harder to read, but it's preferable to having 4 screens blearing bright white light at me all day.
I will always use dark mode, I feel it’s the best for my eyes and comfort. Maybe I am wrong but I made my choice.
You're wrong. A scientific study has proven you wrong.
Similarly, a scientific study has proven that smoking is good for you and protects you from Covid....
(/s)
Similarly, a scientific study has proven that smoking is good for you and protects you from Covid....
(/s)
I like dark mode, but possibly more important for me is Night Shift that changes the color temperature I think.
Dark Mode doesn't hurt my eyes. Light mode does. "Something something science". Whatever.
TIL that people were using dark mode because of purported health benefits?
black pixels are better than white pixels.
black pixels are better than white pixels.
The answer is obviously—no it’s not! Neither is light mode. Screens are bad for the eyes.
In this scenario you kinda just have to do what is best for you, and how you work. Don't get me wrong I'm glad to be better informed on this, but its not going to change that I prefer how dark mode looks overall
I use dark mode because it looks cool, now go cry to your mama you light mode peasant.
I personally also keep the warm light display setting ON all the time: day or night.
I prefer tie-dye mode.
It's interesting that this article surfaced shortly after the Ask HN question about maintaining eye health https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33945390
This blog post and most replies are misinformation and misunderstanding, and people posting their own anecdotes as advice.
If you aren't considering the macula, emmetropization, circadian rhythms, and corneal thinning, then please don't give advice to others on this topic.
Most people, this blog post author included, don't understand what "good for your eyes" means. For some reason, when talking about eye health, people resort to anecdotes and guessing.
This blog post and most replies are misinformation and misunderstanding, and people posting their own anecdotes as advice.
If you aren't considering the macula, emmetropization, circadian rhythms, and corneal thinning, then please don't give advice to others on this topic.
Most people, this blog post author included, don't understand what "good for your eyes" means. For some reason, when talking about eye health, people resort to anecdotes and guessing.
Then please educate us, everyone wants to know...
Great! What is the empirical answer, then?
Most likely, there is none. This blog post is just some BS that takes some talking points from one crappy study somewhere. The anecdotes in reply are just that: anedcotes, though honestly, they're probably overall of much higher value than the blog post, since they account for all kinds of issues that the post does not (such as the people with floaters).
I'm pretty sure there's no scientific consensus on this issue at all.
I'm pretty sure there's no scientific consensus on this issue at all.
honestly I can't tell if dark helps with my astigmatism as it's very slight and what not but I also have a light phobia. I can't deal with a bright overhead light anymore. natural and warm lights are better I can handle the sun fine but do like to find shade when I can.
recently I bought rose tinted glasses mainly so when I had to deal with white screens I really didn't it's been awesome. they're clip ons so I've been wearing my glasses more often too.
tldr: benefit to eye strain or not light aversion is also a very real thing and that can be averted by dark screens.
recently I bought rose tinted glasses mainly so when I had to deal with white screens I really didn't it's been awesome. they're clip ons so I've been wearing my glasses more often too.
tldr: benefit to eye strain or not light aversion is also a very real thing and that can be averted by dark screens.
Typical internet contrarian:
"The trend is wrong! I knew it! Read this!"
points at anecdote + straw man confidently
this dude should have a disclaimer that his poorly researched blog post does not constitute medical advice
Something I'd like to point out that seems to be consistently missing from the present studies and the discussions that come up every time this topic gets posted again.
Not only are the "decide if this string of characters is a word" tests showing a maximum difference of around 30% for dark v light mode in simulated night with small fonts but, that's not what most people are doing most of the time when reading things and it's certainly not what programmers are doing when reading code. So that almost certainly does not translate directly to X% slower reading performance in real world scenarios. This real world vs lab test difference alone can easily account for why so many people assert that dark mode is better for them even though the evidence sometimes suggests it shouldn't be. And that doesn't score a point for either camp. It means there's still much we don't know. So any conclusions are tentative at best.
Studies on the mechanics of reading, especially on the web, have shown that much of the time people are actually scanning and identifying whole phrases or sentences as one pattern. Hence I can write and the cow jumped over the moom and more than half the people who read that will not notice the second m swapped in. Same trick applies with jumped over the room. Which many will literally see as jumped over the moon even though two letters are different now and it's an actual different word at the end. It's even harder to see correctly because I already primed your memory with the typical phrase. Of course, people unfamiliar with that phrase won't have a problem with it. They have to parse each word anyway. No bigger pattern in memory. This is even worse when people are scanning whole web pages looking for patterns that might match content they are interested in. And most of the time programmers are reading blocks of text, it is to find an answer or concept they need in order to continue coding.
Quoting the same group as in the OP: https://creativehandles.com/blog-posts/79/4-types-of-eye-tra...
People do this in speech too, try making a statement to some friends that sounds phonetically similar to a common catch phrase or something you know they'd be triggered by but actually be saying something different and benign. See how often they react as if you said the common or triggering phrase anyway. For extra fun, follow up later and see how many people swear they actually remember you saying the thing you didn't say.
I suspect this pattern recognition trick is even more at play in reading and writing code. When one is fluent in a language, we don't actually need to read the symbols to know what a block of code is doing. Structures are so deliberately similar that one can recognize conditionals and loops for what they are without reading the words "if" or "while", this goes on to the content of those blocks and any function calls as well. Many functions use similar names for similar actions in code regardless of the program space because humans being humans.
To spot this one in action, take notice of how certain ways of writing particular programming patterns are jarring every time you read them, to the point that you feel the need to change it even though it's perfectly functional. It's not the code per se, it's the readability. It's particularly egregious when someone gets a pattern around 70 to 80% correct but then does something different for one or two components of the overall pattern. You get annoyed reading it because it's like hearing someone mispronounce a word or change one word in a commonly used phrase. The pattern is there in your brain, it starts to match, you build up an expectation that the next parts will match. If it does, satisfaction; if it doesn't, frustration. Now your brain has to do more work to read in and learn what the non-matching parts are doing. This expectation tells you that you would rather be pattern matching large blocks of code than reading each syntax element.
When reading in this manner, it's actually more important to have proper syntax highlighting than any specific contrast ratio between the background and the text. I could totally see light mode being a consistent hindrance here too. Not sure about that but it would explain a lot about the prevalence of preferences in general population vs programmers. For good syntax highlighting you want a lot of colors that contrast against both the background and the other syntax elements. Some shades of yellow and green probably don't do as well against a white background as a dark one for example, especially if used for similar shaped elements that often show up close to each other.
Regardless of how that goes, or if we ever even find out whether this matters to the light v dark debate, the nuances around the way humans read differently in different situations are not even being addressed in the studies yet. That observation alone should give people pause before confidently claiming to know anything here and certainly before asserting that someone is wrong to have the preferences they have.
Just something to think about.
Not only are the "decide if this string of characters is a word" tests showing a maximum difference of around 30% for dark v light mode in simulated night with small fonts but, that's not what most people are doing most of the time when reading things and it's certainly not what programmers are doing when reading code. So that almost certainly does not translate directly to X% slower reading performance in real world scenarios. This real world vs lab test difference alone can easily account for why so many people assert that dark mode is better for them even though the evidence sometimes suggests it shouldn't be. And that doesn't score a point for either camp. It means there's still much we don't know. So any conclusions are tentative at best.
Studies on the mechanics of reading, especially on the web, have shown that much of the time people are actually scanning and identifying whole phrases or sentences as one pattern. Hence I can write and the cow jumped over the moom and more than half the people who read that will not notice the second m swapped in. Same trick applies with jumped over the room. Which many will literally see as jumped over the moon even though two letters are different now and it's an actual different word at the end. It's even harder to see correctly because I already primed your memory with the typical phrase. Of course, people unfamiliar with that phrase won't have a problem with it. They have to parse each word anyway. No bigger pattern in memory. This is even worse when people are scanning whole web pages looking for patterns that might match content they are interested in. And most of the time programmers are reading blocks of text, it is to find an answer or concept they need in order to continue coding.
Quoting the same group as in the OP: https://creativehandles.com/blog-posts/79/4-types-of-eye-tra...
People do this in speech too, try making a statement to some friends that sounds phonetically similar to a common catch phrase or something you know they'd be triggered by but actually be saying something different and benign. See how often they react as if you said the common or triggering phrase anyway. For extra fun, follow up later and see how many people swear they actually remember you saying the thing you didn't say.
I suspect this pattern recognition trick is even more at play in reading and writing code. When one is fluent in a language, we don't actually need to read the symbols to know what a block of code is doing. Structures are so deliberately similar that one can recognize conditionals and loops for what they are without reading the words "if" or "while", this goes on to the content of those blocks and any function calls as well. Many functions use similar names for similar actions in code regardless of the program space because humans being humans.
To spot this one in action, take notice of how certain ways of writing particular programming patterns are jarring every time you read them, to the point that you feel the need to change it even though it's perfectly functional. It's not the code per se, it's the readability. It's particularly egregious when someone gets a pattern around 70 to 80% correct but then does something different for one or two components of the overall pattern. You get annoyed reading it because it's like hearing someone mispronounce a word or change one word in a commonly used phrase. The pattern is there in your brain, it starts to match, you build up an expectation that the next parts will match. If it does, satisfaction; if it doesn't, frustration. Now your brain has to do more work to read in and learn what the non-matching parts are doing. This expectation tells you that you would rather be pattern matching large blocks of code than reading each syntax element.
When reading in this manner, it's actually more important to have proper syntax highlighting than any specific contrast ratio between the background and the text. I could totally see light mode being a consistent hindrance here too. Not sure about that but it would explain a lot about the prevalence of preferences in general population vs programmers. For good syntax highlighting you want a lot of colors that contrast against both the background and the other syntax elements. Some shades of yellow and green probably don't do as well against a white background as a dark one for example, especially if used for similar shaped elements that often show up close to each other.
Regardless of how that goes, or if we ever even find out whether this matters to the light v dark debate, the nuances around the way humans read differently in different situations are not even being addressed in the studies yet. That observation alone should give people pause before confidently claiming to know anything here and certainly before asserting that someone is wrong to have the preferences they have.
Just something to think about.
control option command 8
Wow. Read the article guys.
He says eye strain is caused by blue light. That's why he uses light mode.
That makes no sense. Blue light is ORTHOGONAL to the question of whether Dark Mode or Light Mode is better for your eyes.
Does light mode cause eye strain does dark mode cause eye strain? Which is better for your eyes? He doesn't find any research studies comparing the two and he grabs an unrelated study and claims that blue light is the only source of eye strain. I can assure blue light is NOT the only source of eye strain.
This article is biased. He's picking and choosing studies to support a biased agenda.
He says eye strain is caused by blue light. That's why he uses light mode.
That makes no sense. Blue light is ORTHOGONAL to the question of whether Dark Mode or Light Mode is better for your eyes.
Does light mode cause eye strain does dark mode cause eye strain? Which is better for your eyes? He doesn't find any research studies comparing the two and he grabs an unrelated study and claims that blue light is the only source of eye strain. I can assure blue light is NOT the only source of eye strain.
This article is biased. He's picking and choosing studies to support a biased agenda.
Thanks but I'll let the scientific process play itself out over time. In the mean time, I appreciate that the public debate has induced phones, apps, and many web sites to give me the option to enjoy reading things all day without eye strain.
The fact that more stuff defaults dark mode or follows a system setting also means I spend less time having to re-style sites with a browser plugin.
This is probably already an endless back and forth like the editor wars but I'm okay with that as the long term status quo. It'll mean that most designers learn that they just have to use themes and include an option for either preference. Some even go as far as making their sites look good in both modes. It pleases my counter-culture senses to see them exploring more angles on the color wheel.