Maybe aside from the unset option, something more specific about a minimum contrast threshold would be useful. Ideally the author wouldn't be breaking below that threshold themselves while explaining it.
* The visual presentation of text and images of text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following * Large Text: Large-scale text and images of large-scale text have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1
Grey is not the problem. Low contrast is the problem.
There's pretty much nothing in the natural world that has the contrast ratio a modern screen can produce. It is easier on the eyes to not have blindingly high contrast.
No printed page in any book or magazine you've seen has ever had contrast ratio a screen can show. It's just not possible to do.
Legibility can be an issue, and is good to discuss. I agree that when something like "@media (prefers-contrast: more)" is set, text should be at a higher contrast level for those with lower vision. But don't blind everyone else in the process.
>... the amount of times per day I ask myself if I’m literally going blind, only to find out the “designer” decided for me how I should best read their website.
Yes? That's what the designers of literally everything do, decide how it will be presented to you. The magic part of HTML/CSS is you can change that to suit your needs.
The natural world has much better contrast than the majority of screens. Not everyone has or affords a Mac Retina display. The main issue is, that, since some 10 years, UX experts appeared who pushed away configurability in favor of gray on gray ( remember when you were able to select the background and foreground color ?). The majority of screens have crappy contrasts (100:1).
> The majority of screens have crappy contrasts (100:1).
No idea where you're pulling this from. A MacBook Air display from 2010, a very average non-retina screen, has about 300:1. A modern MBA is over 1000:1 real-world contrast performance. A very average quality budget TN display from 2010s is 500:1.
I could not find a phone or desktop display at my local retailer with stated a contrast ratio lower than 1200:1 (stated vs real world will of course be different, but not hugely).
I agree apps/websites should take into account user preferences (with things like 'prefers-contrast' in CSS). I saw a great example recently where a website had a light/dark/hi-contrast toggle... but on first visit it defaulted to the one based on current system light/dark mode and 'prefers-contrast' indicators.
We can have both text that's easier for most people eyes and higher contrast and/or larger text for those who need it.
Think about standing outside on a sunny day. The sunlit pavement might be tens of thousands of times brighter than the shadow under a tree. Look up at a bright cloud and then glance into a shaded doorway. Your eyes can still make out detail in both. The dynamic range of the real world the ratio between the darkest and brightest things present at the same time is enormous.
Cameras struggle with this. When you take a photo, the camera can't always capture both the bright sky and the dark ground correctly at the same time. Either the sky blows out to white or the shadows become black. That limitation is why HDR photography and exposure bracketing exists.
Even modern digital cameras still capture a far wider range of brightness than most displays can show. That's why we use tone mappers in photography and video. Tone mapping compresses the huge brightness range captured by the camera so it can fit onto a display that only has a tiny slice of that range.
So screens are not "more contrasty" than reality. They're the opposite. Displays are a bottleneck that force a very wide real world brightness range into something much smaller.
Your eyes are also incredibly good at adapting. If you look at a white page of paper in sunlight and then look at black ink on it, the contrast between the two is extremely strong. Snow in sunlight next to a dark rock is another example. Nature is full of intense light and dark differences.
When web developers avoid strong contrast because it feels "unnatural", they're misunderstanding the physics and the biology. High contrast between text and background isn't artificial at all. It's actually closer to how humans evolved to see clearly: dark shapes against bright surfaces or bright shapes against dark ones.
The real ergonomic problem with screens usually isn't contrast between text and background. It's screen brightness relative to the environment. Many people run their monitors far brighter than the room around them. If a screen is glowing like a light source in a dim room, the whole display becomes visually harsh and fatiguing. In ergonomics, the usual advice is to match the screen's brightness to the surrounding lighting so the display feels like part of the environment rather than a flashlight in your face.
When display brightness is set appropriately, strong text contrast simply improves legibility. The discomfort people blame on "too much contrast" is often just a monitor that's set far brighter than it should be. Reality itself contains vastly wider brightness differences than any display, so high contrast text isn't unnatural at all. It's a practical way to make information clear within the limited dynamic range that screens can actually show.
Your points about day/shade contrast and eyes adjusting are correct, as are screen brightness levels people use.
> Look up at a bright cloud and then glance into a shaded doorway.
Yes, and that causes strain on the eyes. Our eyes very are good at adapting (as you said), but it is not pleasant to do rapidly or while trying to concentrate and interpret text.
Bleached white paper and black ink is (pretty generously) ~15:1 contrast ratio in a well lit room, which any half decent screen in the past 20 years surpass.
Pure black/white text is harder to read on screens since they are producing and pushing light at you (as opposed bouncing back ambient light like on paper). We have never seen text printed on paper at the contrast ratios a modern screen can produce, since there is no paper white enough or ink dark enough.
There are many things with typography that are finicky and sometimes counter-intuitive. Making text bigger and all-caps won't always make something more readable (see here: https://www.mentalfloss.com/transportation/roads/why-road-si...), likewise more contrast doesn't always make it more readable for everyone.
Of course there are people who require more contrast and larger type sizes and the great part about reading stuff on screens is we can often accommodate that better. Some websites/apps/etc handle accessibility options well and some really don't.
So I kind of went on a much longer thing than I wanted to... oh well. Sorry if I was too forthright in my initial comment, I guess clarity in intent/meaning can be just as important as readability.
Maximum readability for humans is black text on light grey. Contrast is not the only thing that matters.
Please Stop Using Grey Text (2022)
https://tangledweb.xyz/please-stop-using-grey-text-3d3e71acf... (https://archive.is/QictZ) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31420938]
> He just wants things to look cool and design-y
> some random photo
> That doesn't mean anything
This leads me to believe the author of this post doesn’t know what they’re talking about
What if you empower the user to control their device and use reasonable baselines that maximize legibility
I do use pink for it though, usually pink on red or yellow background. It makes people feel more engaged and they write all sorts of happy emails about how epic blinking pink on rainbow ponicorn background wallpapers are. The 90s were a great time for the global internets ...
Helpful of the website to demonstrate the problem in situ in its tag links and code comments! (Maybe just in dark mode?)
Next time we'll ship your Mac. No, we won't give you a new one.
People with even minor sight issues can have a hard time with sites designed that way. When I run across a site like that I usually try it in lynx, if the site does not work in lynx, I block it on my system so I would not waste my time with it.
You used css to change the pointer. So instead of the I-Beam I had to use a regular pointer to select that text. Information density is nice but information access shouldn't be compromised either.
Aside from that, while this is true, I'd think you'd then want something better for your users than "font-family: system-ui".
Gray text, against a gray background, can suck.
I’m getting on in years, and low-contrast text affects me a lot more, these days, than it used to.
But I would be in favor of sites using variables more so that personal customization is easier. But often this goes against their desire for "branding".
If you are concerned about design you would realize your page looks ridiculous and borderline illegible on modern screens (that are not phones). Text color is an issue, but layout is worse.
They have huge gutters and margins, and not-quite-black text on creme/off-white/never-actually-white backgrounds... why? Because it's easier of the eyes for long blocks of text.
We'll also add a wonderful floating text input box to let you chat with our helpful AI assistant.
Just stick to ensuring WCAG 2 AA rating. If your awesome design isn’t AA there better be a good reason. If it is, everything’s fine.
I got criticism on my blog for using a serif font but those people are just … wrong. Serif fonts are just better for reading at all font sizes.
1. People using TTY's used black ink on very-light-yellow roll paper, or
2. Those lucky enough to have ADM-3 VDT's often chose light green or light orange on black.
Just sayin.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT220#/media/File:DEC_VT220_te...