<Silly> RE: Help with question about web page access

From: der Mouse <mouse_at_Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: Tue Aug 17 13:43:37 2004

>> (It's also why I loathe black-on-white for computer displays - I
>> find it fine for reflective technologies, such as ink on paper, but
>> horrid for self-luminant technologies, such as all computer displays
>> I've seen.)
> With respect to CRT (and all other self luminant displays) I find
> that the contrast issue really depends on the pixel size. When I am
> running 2048x1536 here. A black backround with white text is horrid
> [assuming a 1-3 pixel stroke width for text] Black on white is great.

I've never seen a CRT running 2048x1536. But I've seen 1600x1280, and
based on that, I suspect that your problem is that you're pushing the
monitor beyond what it can actually do - and under those circumstances,
thin vertical strokes tend to get lost, which does damage W-on-B worse
than it does B-on-W.

I had a monochrome monitor (= no shadow mask, and therefore dot pitch
limited only by intensity control electronics bandwidth) that was great
at 1600x1280, but unfortunately it dimmed into unusability. I've yet
to see a colour screen that was any good at that sort of resolution -
I'm told they exist but are expensive. (I'd be willing to believe that
a good 2048x1536 screen could exist, but I'd expect it to be _very_
expen$ive....)

A single-pixel vertical line and a single-pixel horizontal line should
appear about equal brightness, white-on-black. If one appears visibly
dimmer than the other, then something is being pushed beyond what it
can really do, and you will have legibility problems - but the real
problem is pushing the hardware; using white-on-black just makes it
somewhat more visible.

/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X Against HTML mouse_at_rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Received on Tue Aug 17 2004 - 13:43:37 BST