Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Poor contrast for monospace code literals #133

Open
jeromekelleher opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 11 comments
Open

Poor contrast for monospace code literals #133

jeromekelleher opened this issue Oct 18, 2022 · 11 comments

Comments

@jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member

The light-grey font used for code literals is difficult to distinguish from the background, e.g. this example:

Screenshot 2022-10-18 at 12 23 58

@benjeffery
Copy link
Member

Here are two proposals (as advised by One):

Bold monospace text:
Screenshot from 2022-11-30 13-27-26

Green monospace text plus underline links to compensate:
Screenshot from 2022-11-30 13-27-40

@jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member Author

I like the green version, but maybe someone with a better eye for legibility could take a look? (Would you mind posting a link to this issue to the Slack @benjeffery?)

@petrelharp
Copy link
Contributor

I don't like underlined links so much myself, so I guess I vote the grey version? They both look fine though.

@bhaller
Copy link

bhaller commented Dec 1, 2022

I vote for the grey bold version, out of those two. But the only reason bold is needed with the grey text is because the text is grey in the first place, making it low-contrast, right? How about just making the monospace text be monospace, but without a change in the text color? Just the difference in font seems sufficient to me. I think white monospace non-bold would probably be my first choice.

@jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member Author

jeromekelleher commented Dec 1, 2022

How about just making the monospace text be monospace, but without a change in the text color?

That could a good one - would it be easy to try out @benjeffery?

@castedo
Copy link
Member

castedo commented Dec 1, 2022

My first reaction was that grey version by far looks better and has the following logic:

  • green bold is consistent with link style on Wikipedia and many modern websites (underline is default anchor style from distant web past)
  • subtle grey bold is appropriate because it doesn't seem that important a signal because functionally that text is not that diff (in contrast to hyperlinks)

To be honest, my first first reaction was not really believing the 2nd one was a serious proposal, more of a give a client a choice between the right choice and an obviously wrong choice just to give a client a choice. 😆

@benjeffery
Copy link
Member

benjeffery commented Dec 1, 2022

Here are two more, white based on @bhaller and a stronger grey.
Screenshot from 2022-12-01 23-35-34
Screenshot from 2022-12-01 23-39-23

@bhaller
Copy link

bhaller commented Dec 1, 2022

I like the white non-bold the most. The first gray bold would be my second choice since it has a similar visual density to the white non-bold (the gray makes it less visible, the bold makes it more visible, kind of cancelling out to produce an overall visual density similar to the surrounding text).

@castedo
Copy link
Member

castedo commented Dec 2, 2022

Both look fine to me. Not that it is very important, but just in case you want to spend more time making it closer to perfect, you might want to riff off what Wikipedia does: look at text "document.tex" on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX, for example.

@jeromekelleher
Copy link
Member Author

Vote on Slack?

@benjeffery
Copy link
Member

Vote on Slack?

Just created one in #website

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants