h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok, I'll have to research which colors are fashionable at the moment I guess.

I find far fewer are readable white-font-on-colour.

I'd draw a line from the top right corner of each block to about halfway down the left-hand side, and accept those colours to the top left of that line.

Results for white text

1st and 2nd 3rd 4th block, the bottom right hand single colour is illegible.

for 5 and 6 the one immediately above the corner one and to the left of it also are too close a shade to distinguish the difference between the text and the shade.


I wonder whether the fact that the yellow 'contact us' on the left bar in Brunel is making it hard for people to read anything with some yellow colour in it? or whether it is a tonal problem as well to do with the colours.

Another consideration that I've been discussing previously is that individual colour monitors vary, as do browser settings.

I am presently using a laptop with an LED display, but with the screen brightness turned lower than default. So we may not be comparing like for like, and this could be a straw poll based on really small numbers.

Having redone it, with white on colour for all skins, the number ranges which are completely readable to me are as follows:

000-520
001*531
002-532
003-333
004-334
005-335

The bottom right hand corner of four are completely unreadable in all but the first grid, with the others needing a squint at to see.

Oh, I should mention that although the text is clearer on more in this second test, that the 'flashing' occurs just as much as it did before, so I would still have to avoid the darker shades.

Two things occur to me.

1) We need to be seriously promoting the Plain skin as an option that is easy to read due to the comparatively large font size and lack of colours and graphics.

2) We need a white-on-black version of Plain for those who find white-on-black easiest to read.

People are going to navigate away from the page if it causes discomfort. This is caused by trying to read the white-on-whatever text, yes - but also because, for astigmatics (lots of folks), colours that seem to move (I don't know the technical term) distract the eye and make the whole page hard to read. If it makes you uneasy, you're going to leave, I think.

For Gnomon's chart and my vision (20/35 with cataract implants, but I can't focus at all at 18 inches without corrective lenses, I have residual astigmatism and optical nerve drusen, so I'm the worst-case scenario except for minichessemouse ):

First 2 blocks: First 3 lines are readable
For the rest: Only the first 2 lines are readable
For the last two blocks: of those first 2 lines, only left three fail to produce a mild feeling of nausea. This is not an aesthetic judgement, prolonged viewing causes discomfort.
For all the blocks: Left is better than right.

Now, questions about what colours are considered 'old-fashioned'. I have a suggestion here:

The only people who worry about 'old-fashioned' are those who have perfect vision and aren't worried about reading the thing. Readers with less than perfect vision will develop an instant 'dislike' for a fashionable pastel, because it hurts their eyes.

This colour question is showing up on Brunel alone. As I understand, we're soon going to be presenting Barlesque to the world. If we do that, the public at large will see a fashionable internet blue. Or did I misunderstand?

Yes, it is Brunel alone, but it is worth considering. We have many devoted Brunel researchers who have probably chosen it entirely because of the deep shades.

I'm very interested in your answer Dmitri, as I had no idea that pastels did that to anybody. I shall take this point to heart for the future.

Great, Lanza. I think that's it - the contrast is very helpful to our visually challenged readers.


Let's get some more reactions - calling all four-eyed people out there - and make us a list.

In Brunel the four uppermost rows in each block are readable. The lowest is not readable in any block. The fifth rows are somewhat readable in the four (or maybe it was three) uppermost blocks.

Considering that a much larger percentage
of the human race than previously thought
is colourblind to some extent, then the only
thing that matters is 'contrast'.

Think of those charts they use to test colour-blindness.
And remember that the 3 most important aspects of
readable text are: Contrast! Contrast! Contrast!



~jwf~

That's a good point, ~jwf~, but unfortunately, there are some people for whom too much contrast is a bad thing. Lanzababy has already reported that the really dark, high-contrast colours don't work for here as they appear to flash and jump about.

I can only read black text on white backgrounds.
(All hail the Alabasterds!)
(And praise be the BOLD and ZOOM.)

I wonder if Lanza might have her 'brightness'
settings too high? Or maybe she's reading her
screen on that tropical beach we are all so
envious of.



~jwf~

I am not blind, and my vision--until I have Lasik surgery this Thursday--is 20/15. It's not so much the clarity of my vision that causes me to wince at the Front Page, but rather the color scheme and contrast. Using the color chart you provided, the worst "offenders" are:

050 -- 550
051 -- 551, 341 -- 541
052 -- 552, 242 -- 542, 332 -- 532
053 -- 553, 043 -- 543, 233 -- 533, 323 -- 523
054 -- 554, 044 -- 544, 234 -- 554(should be 534), 324 -- 524
055 -- 555, 045 -- 545, 235 -- 535, 325 -- 525, 415 -- 515

Patterns, patterns. Typically the poor contrast (for me) is in the "lower right corner" of the color grid. It simply looks too "washed out" for easy viewing and understanding of the print. Lots of squinting, and that can't be good. I actually had to 'click & drag' my cursor over the area for (555), because the font didn't even register on my screen until I caused the "inversion" of colors.

Hope my input helps pin down the problem and a proposed fix.

B4iendupbeingaBetaTester4allthelittlequirksofourshinynewtoy

A distinct preference for

Tables 1, 2, 3
Columns 0, 1, 2, 3
Rows 00, 01, 02


The higher the Table/Column/Row numbers, the less useful:
5,5 in all cases is illegible


Rod

If you ask me yellow is a bad color for text. I think things would be a lot easier if the color of the 'contact us' link could be changed between black and white. I wonder why they didn't kind of attach it to the menu above it anyhow.
Making the top and bottom part in a darker color is less of a problem I think.

Colours that are OK for me

000 100 200 300 400
010 110 210 310 410
020 120 220 320
030 130 230 330
040 140 240
-

001 101 201 301 401
011 111 211 311 411
021 121 221 321
021 131 231
-
-

002 102 202 302 402
012 112 212 312
022 122 222 322
032 132
-
-

003 103 203 303 403
013 113 213 313
023 123
033
-
-

004 104 204 304 404
014 114 214 314 414
024 124 224
034 134234
-
-

005 105 205 305 405
015 115 215 315
025 125 225
035
-
-


Hope that helps . I am by the way technically blind, vision 6/36.

mini

Thanks, Mouse.

Top corners look best in the deuteranope simulator. http://vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php.

TRiG.

Top left corners, sorry.

I don't have vision problems myself, but I can simulate them! And for both deuteranope and protanope, the top-left corners have higher contrast, and are easier to read.

TRiG.