From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-23 15:40:52
You know way more about this than I do.
And if I'm the only one who finds wikipedia's links
easier to read, then obviously my views should be ignored.
How about the line spacing?
Rene Rivera wrote:
> Yes. I think you mean "more contrast". There are other ways to improve
> contrast without changing the luminance. It's a problem with visual
> perception that's hard to deal with, and with much research behind it.
> As an example here's a quick color study comparison of the wiki link
> color and my current link color...
> The wiki color is on the left, mine on the right. The first three rows
> are the pure color. The second three are the luminance of the colors
> only. Both have the text in white and the opposing color. This helps
> show differences, and more importantly similarities, in the brightness
> and contrast of the colors. (this is a common way of typeset comparison)
> As you can see the wiki color has slightly more contrast on the white.
> But it has less contrast when only the luminance is considered. One
> common cause for this is the color bleeding that happens on monitors.
> For others the experience will vary, including laptop LCD users which
> are likely to see either no difference or significant difference between
> the two depending on how the LCD does a "floor" or "ceiling" on the colors.
>> And I hate to sound like a broken record, but I compare
>> every attempt directly against www.wikipedia.org.
>> The shade of blue used in wikipedia.org (or is it my browser?)
> It's wikipedia... and your graphics card.. and your gamma curve.. and
> your monitor, LCD, plasma, or projection.
> My suggestion, for you and others, is to download the above page and
> play with the colors yourself to see how it looks on your display. And
> tell everyone of your experience :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk