Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>#000 on #FFF (or vice-versa) rarely ever occurs in nature. It also tends to strain eyes. Optimal contrast for most people tends to involve a dark grey,

Is there actual scientific research that supports this?

Most printed books have dark black ink instead of grey ink. (Although the paper of the pages may not be #FFF white but an off white.)

In the office, the laser printers lay down dark black toner on crisp white paper. The paper brightness can be ISO 98 or even ISO 102 and the black toner is extremely comfortable to read.

If your statement was true, I would think there would be a massive demand for dark grey toner printed on light grey paper because it is "less strain on the eyes."

The evolution of Amazon Kindles are also moving towards better contrast. Early models were dark grey e-ink on light grey background. The latest models are getting closer to the ideal of black text on white background and the customer reviews support that improvement.

A comparison datapoint: Using F12 inspector, I notice that sarahwerner.net paragraphs uses rgb(68,68,68) while HN posts' text use rgb(0,0,0). I think most of would find HN text to be more comfortable to read.

Is there actual scientific research that supports this?

I don't know about OP, but in painting and in video/film art pure black and white are encouraged to be avoided. There they are called superblack and superwhite. In paintings it's because there is rarely (or not at all) such color in nature and in video (same for painting) also because it used to degrade signal for some reason in analogue era (strong yellow was avoided as well).

Paper doesn't shine into your eyes.

We also try to avoid staring into the sun, for the same reason.

What objectively measurable difference is there between reflected and transmitted light?

Polarization might be different, but that's something that's only barely perceptible to humans. I don't think it's plausible that it could affect legibility or eye strain. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush )

Energy transfer.

There's a big difference between absorbing reflected ambient light and having photons pumped into your retina.

What? No. You obviously receive way more energy via sunlight reflected off the page of a book than you do via your LCD screen. That's WHY you can't read your LCD screens in direct sunlight.

If the display shines into your eyes, you've mistuned it. Displays white should be as bright as paper sheet you're holding next to it. Fix the settings now. It'll be good for you. Low contrast displays and screens are bad. That's why contrast optimization is so important, like on Kindle. Every new model got higher contrast than previous ones.

But HN has a shaded background, which still reduces the contrast.

If the non-white background is an offsetting factor, why isn't the fact that #000 is actually realized on LCD/LED monitors as "dark grey" also an offsetting factor to reduce contrast?

Apparently, it looks like there's a difference of opinions (rather than scientific rigor) whether the "dark grey" of #000 is "light enough".

I'm fine with it ultimately boiling down to subjective aesthetics but sgk284's post made it sound like #000 eyestrain was scientific fact.

White paper doesn't have glare, unlike some monitors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com