The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
small gray light-grey text on a pale-grey background....This is what really p's me off.
I'm not the only one then!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
Even if the typeface is large enough by itself, web fashion of today is to use fonts made up of hairlines only. Single pixel width, or thereabouts. Sometimes medium or light grey as well. I think the designers might use the term "elegance" in describing the style. They definitely should not use the term "readability".
In theory this should create no problems with web pages ... if what we were told 20 years ago had been true. It was said that the "cascading" nature of CSS allows you to define the typeface and size at the top level, and it would sift through the layers, adjusting whatever you wanted to adjust. We were told that the same page could be viewed using one CSS for large, high contrast text, another CSS for poor resolution screens, hence different fonts and other layout, yet another CSS for users with a braille terminal. This was a blatant lie. In the very first years, I tried to make alternate CSSes. Essentially it might affect websites that didn't use CSS at all (they did exist, 20 years ago!). For very simple, almost pure text pages, you might be able to affect some text, but often just part of it. I never saw a web site providing a "If you can't read this text because it is too small, click on it to enlarge font size" that could be scaled up by adding a local CSS. I never saw a single demo of a CSS that would give a braille reader access to the web page text, or a reduced-vision person higher contrast and larger typefaces, not even in the early days when absolute measures were considered inappropriate.
Today, most websites set both typeface and size explicitlty, very close to the actual graphics, and in absolute values rather than relative. Changing a default has no effect whatsoever. I don't even know if today's browsers have facilities for inserting CSS files or set defaults. Why should they, when 99,99% of page elements will ignore it anyway?
In theory I can, for each and every web page, pick up the specific CSS of that web page and edit it. Although there in theory is no difference between theory and practice, in pratice there is. The onlyu workable solution would be one a single "private" CSS, setting defaults for all web pages.
Our only rescue is the zoom function. But that cannot change a light grey hairline font to a solid black font of a fatter design. To make the text readable I have to zoom up far more than I would do with a proper typface choice.
I suspect that there is some way of setting up a global (on my machine) font substitution table so that any request for a hairline typeface would return some roboust, readable face. I don't know how to do that. And I would probably have to add several new typefaces to the table every day for a year before it would calm down. Maybe I could even manipulate a color name-to-RGB table - but is seems like the great majority of CSS files today use RGB directly, rather than color names. I am sure that web designers have ways to circument such substitutions and replacements anyway: They see it as they d*** right to force their style onto me. If I can't read it (with ease), then that is my problem, not their problem!
Or they present the stuff as a PDF file where everything is absolute. Especially for sales brochures you see this - and a lot of "elegant" hairline typefaces. In one case it was so bad that I was happy to discover that the PDF permitted me to create an MS-Word copy, where I could replace the font by a readable one. Most PDFs won't permit this. Or they represent a significant part of text info as images of text. In any case: This is not what I consider a workable solution.
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
The case was originally brought by a blind man named Guillermo Robles, who sued the pizza chain after he was unable to order food on Domino’s website and mobile app despite using screen-reading software.
So I'm wondering why he didn't call the order in. I don't want to seem unsympathetic to the disabled but this requirement seems a bit much.
Ah, I didn't know it was a simple and common fix. I don't do any web stuff (except for my very simple and non-compliant personal site). I assumed it was a substantial task as it seems all I hear from folks at work and on CP is how difficult everything webbish seems to be. Thanks for the enlightenment.
I haven't particularly noticed that, but I do know there's a bit of a opposite trend in games.
When Final Fantasy XV came out I had to wear my glasses (which I never wear anymore) and I still wasn't able to read everything on my TV.
I went looking for a patch and saw blogs and forums about the small font and apparently I already had a patch which made it bigger!
In the end I put my couch something like a meter in front of the TV.
I had the same problem with God of War.
I read that more and more games use these ridiculously small fonts and more gamers have trouble reading them.
It really takes out some of the fun because you're always squinting your eyes.
A regular font on a computer, which is probably like half a meter away at most, is well readable for you and me.
I never had trouble with CP, for example.
But I can imagine that it's just a little too small for some people.
Making it just a tad bigger might help those people and personally I don't really mind either.
Although it can get annoying to read on phones where the screen can't fit that many characters.
Because actual responsive designs are hard. Much easier to just design for a small phone, and apply a fixed scaling factor on anything larger.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
I totally blame high resolution phones and tablets for this.
When you have a page that's perfectly reasonable on, say, a 24" 1080p monitor, it's rather unreadable on a 6" phone at the same resolution. Since so many lemmings nowadays are glued to their phones, what's now appropriate for a phone turns into a huge waste of space on a monitor.
ah Rodney Dangerfield: so often proved that old nugget:
"If you can't laugh at yourself you're missing the best joke(s)."
(and really the way he told those sorts of jokes it wasn't hard to put yourself in his place.)
One of the few US comedians I actually found to be truly funny.