[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/09/10]
David Champion writes: > Here's the thing: paper's generally whitish, yes, but it's not because > white backgrounds are inherently better. Agreed. > ... but the paper argument really doesn't carry you on it because > it's not the same thing at all. It's not even the same color model. It isn't, and if you're dealing with something like a shell command-line or a plain-text e-mail it doesn't really matter which colours you use. But for things such as DTP packages which provide on-screen views of full-colour paper documents, it does make sense for screen background to be white. This also applies to some extent to word processors, web-pages, and a few other things. Enough of them that many windows are going to be dark text on pale backgrounds, so my eyes are going to have to cope with that As such, I find it less hassle to have all my windows using those sorts of colours, rather than some of each. Yes, I see your point that it's stupid to let the limits of a competely different technology to influence my terminal colours, but it makes some sense to me! > I like my books on light (preferably not white) paper, and my terminal > on a dark (preferably not black) window. Furthermore I like my > engravings on basalt or granite, or perhaps limestone, and my tempera > on wet plaster. I like my tempera with noodles. No, that can't be right ... Smylers -- May God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim cannot be done.There's stuff above here
Generated at 17:00 on 10 Sep 2005 by mariachi 0.52