Jason Crosse wrote:
> I know I'm OT here, but I find that easier than black on white.
> Actually, my default is set as #333 on #ccc, but I sit close to the
> screen and sometimes have to change that depending on ambient light.
I don't think you're all that much OT here, because you bring in factors
that CSS is often (or more or less all the time) used to adjust our
The potential problem with this and many such design-adjustments, is
that users may have already adjusted their own hardware and software to
suit their preferences or needs, and it will work well on most web sites
too - except on sites where the designers impose too many corrections
for what they experience on their own equipment, onto visitors.
CSS provides us with the means to make numerous adjustments to a web
document, whether it is to improve things for the user, getting a
certain design-balance, or because the designers' equipment and settings
are less than optimal and CSS is used to adjust for that. Equipment and
settings are literally "all over the place", so factors like light and
contrast are pretty wide-ranged at all ends.
Thus, it is good that users can "defend themselves" against author
styles, and it is even better if designers have a fairly good idea what
may happen when users use such "defensive powers" and make reasonably
sure their creations survive in a usable way despite such "defenses".
> Are there any readability studies out there on this topic? I know,
> for example that it's harder for dyslexics to read black on white
> than a lower contrast combination.
Try asking that question on <http://www.webaim.org/discussion/>, or
maybe on <http://www.accessifyforum.com/>.
You'll probably end up with a wide range of answers, even if you find a
somewhat reliable study on the subject.
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/