Why Do Web Designers use Light Gray Type on a White Background?

[Anderton]

Really - why? Don't they ever read their own stuff? Have they never seen readability studies? Are they sadists?

Can anyone give me a good answer on this one?

[slight-return]

I think it's because they are trying to soften the image by lowering the contrast

They probably read their own stuff but the problem is that they can't truly run a black-box acceptance test (a "freshbox" as some folks will call it - though not that popular a term) as they've seen too much of the content so their reading can be enhanced by recall without even knowing it

Back in my QA days, I used to try to keep sequestered "freshbox" acceptance testers (leverage guys from other projects, etc)...even if you blackbox but have been exposed to multiple iterations, you are polluted

eh, hey the yellow on a white background is a Jr high classic!!!

V TE OR DO G!!


Do they read usability studies? well, I don't know (I suspect many of them read "design" but not hardcore usability stuff, and 5 will get you 10 they'll run from a QA methodology study )

[blue2blue]

I don't.



Well, actually, I do. But extremely rarely. And only where readability isn't particularly an issue.

One tip -- and I've been to a lot of poorly designed websites... musicians, poets, and artists (at least in the early days of the web) seem particularly fond of unreadable, unnavigable sites...

If you highlight the section you're trying to read, it often puts the text and background into an easier to see -- if not necessarily pleasant to read -- combination.

[rasputin1963]

'Cause it looks all cool, impersonal and high-tech, right?

More characteristics of Webpages That Suck may be enjoyed here:

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

[blue2blue]

Originally Posted by rasputin1963

'Cause it looks all cool, impersonal and high-tech, right?

More characteristics of Webpages That Suck may be enjoyed here:

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Thanks for reminding me about that fine crusade!

Chuckling at some of the sites he finds has always been good fun but his frequent reminders about basic design considerations and readability got me a lot more serious about those issues, as well as a lot more serious about web standards.

Amused to see that today's site that sucks -- and, man, does it ever, is that of Dean Grose, the now-former mayor of my neighbor city, Los Alamitos, whose mayor was recently in the news for what he thought was an amusing Easter-themed email ("No Easter egg hunt this year") he sent a number of friends and supporters.

[slight-return]

Originally Posted by blue2blue

Amused to see that today's site that sucks .

Wow, I can't wait to get ISDN so that page will load really fast

[deanmass]

Lack of experience and a goal of having people bounce there site in 60 seconds..

[blue2blue]

Originally Posted by slight-return

Wow, I can't wait to get ISDN so that page will load really fast

Worth its wait... in watermelons.

[riverrock]

Not all websites are well designed, There are a big % of poorly designed websites. But still used whenever reading is not important.

[bp]

I don't know why anyone would do such a silly thing.

[Magpel]

It's just a big FU to Jakob Nielsen

[blue2blue]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Really - why? Don't they ever read their own stuff? Have they never seen readability studies? Are they sadists?

Can anyone give me a good answer on this one?

[one of these days I'm going to look at the date before posting in a six week old thread I already posted in]

Why we do anything.

Looks cool.


And that probably sounds like an ironic dismissal of guys who would do that (light gray on white) but I was just doing it, myself, last night, on my 'personal/socialnet' page.

What I don't do is do something harder to read like that with a body of text that or crucial content.

In my case last night, it was large, bold single phrase section headers. In the extreme, if a visually impaired visitor simply couldn't see them, he would still be able to find his way around, just fine. And anyone using an audio text reader wouldn't, of course, even be aware of the color. (And any images used in navigation should be tagged with appropriate IDs, so they theoretically shouldn't be a problem.)

But... looking at it in the morning light... maybe I should take them down just a few shades of lightness... they look too cool.


FWIW, all the new pages I construct are designed to be degrade gracefully (we web developers put everything in terms of southern gentry)... So, on all the pages I currently develop, if javascript is turned off, the page (or at least everything practical) still works and is still navigable.

I also check new pages on my Blackberry in both the BB browser and Opera Mobile, in addition to IE8, FF3, and Chrome on my PC. Obviously, it's not always possible even with today's best smart phones (I also grab iPhones off my friends to check my sites when convenient ) to deliver all of a website's functionality.

(I used to use Safari but I pulled it off during one of their particularly bad security lapses. But I'll probably put it in again, since I saw that a page I designed a while back that should be perfectly valid -- and plays just fine in IE, FF, and Chrome -- comes out with wacky lines across one section on one of my client's Macs [this apparently related to my use of the strike-through style via CSS -- but this particular client often has wacky stuff happening on his machines completely unrelated to me and my web pages]. At any rate, the clients' is not where you want to see that stuff. And trying to convince a hardcore Mac-loving client [who's already skeptical of a web developer using a PC ] that it's a bug in his beloved Safari... that is somewhere I do not like to go. )

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally Posted by blue2blue

Amused to see that today's site that sucks

Here's a fine example of a site that sucks:

http://www.miauk.com/

[blue2blue]

Oh, man, you're showing your age... that site rocks!!!


In fact, it's about to rock me into an epilepsy-like state...

[blue2blue]

Originally Posted by slight-return

Wow, I can't wait to get ISDN so that page will load really fast

Sadly, the page that was up is down and now we just have an under construction page.

IIRC (always a dicey game), that site was from some OC politician who showed considerable less than common sense in his choice of Obama-oriented humor. (It was the White House set down in the middle of a watermelon patch, IIRC. And the pol was, I think, the erstwhile mayor of Los Alamitos. It seems so long ago... I'm sure we've all grown since then. )

[audioicon]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Really - why? Don't they ever read their own stuff? Have they never seen readability studies? Are they sadists?

Can anyone give me a good answer on this one?

I personally say it's subjectivity and the client needs to tell the person making the site what they want.

No professional web developer I know will recommend making text completely black. When I say black I mean #000000. It's just not as easy to read. I don't know how gray you are talking about Craig but I usually go a few steps up from total black.

I usually use #020202 and many others do.

I developed websites and I don't ever read content. Unless otherwise instructed to do so by the client.

The client supplied me his or her content - I copy and paste it.

I often advised client to seek someone who has a degree or very knowledgeable with the English language. Speaking English is different from writing English. Speaking and writing English is different from trying to write something that is going to entice someone. You need a creative writer.

And finally, many people think they can create websites - They can if they study and applied hundreds or thousand of hours in practice.

As David Powers said - there are no web tools for idiots but there are many idiots who think they can develop websites.

AI

[starlight]

Low contrast is bad .. I mean if a site is low contrast - I don't care, I leave immediately. CSS Zen Garden is one of my pet hates. Damn, talk about eye-strain!

But if we are talking about Accessibility - very high 100% contrast is also bad for some groups. People with corneal dystrophies: too much contrast and things get blurred for them (starbusts)

Also people that suffer from dyslexia, they can't bear too much contrast.

So as a norm, I would say - go for the middle ground like good nice contrast - but not super contrast ie black on white.

Another bad thing is dark backgrounds.

It makes readability a nightmare.

Reading webpages is already hard, so why make it harder? .. having said that - I am guilty as sin. For my last site, I was given a very dark logo ... and so the only way to make that stand out, was to make everything else near-black, oops.

[ultravibe]

You mean web designers in general, or GOOD web designers?

A good web designer has readability and usability in mind at all times with a web design. A bad one doesn't care.

I've been doing web design for almost 15 years now, and for the past 10 or so, a standard exercise is to print the site design on a black and white printer - this will usually reveal any contrast issues.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Really - why? Don't they ever read their own stuff? Have they never seen readability studies? Are they sadists?

Can anyone give me a good answer on this one?

I can't.

But maybe my daughter Lilypond can. I can ask her if she receives you in audience next time you are in Taiwan

[UstadKhanAli]

A lot of sites use smaller fonts, or especially on MySpace, use extremely hard to read text. If I'm really curious, I increase the small fonts or highlight them. Usually, I'm not that curious and move on.

I came across a site on MySpace that was white text on white background. I thought it was funny. I've also seen black text on black backgrounds before.

I see lots of people uploading photos sideways. If they don't care enough to adjust it, I'll put just as much into viewing them.

People know how it looks. They know some text is difficult to read. If they want to create a site that way, it's their call. But it's my call as to whether I want to bother to try and read it.