bad printing = made of lose
Aug. 18th, 2007 07:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethFortean Times this month has a section in white letters on a black background. Which sounds reasonable but the printing isn't quite crisp enough to pull it off - makes the letters skinny fuzzy and pretty much unreadable. I mean with a strong light and a magnifying glass, maybe. And I don't think it's just my eyes. Probably. Just another example of a color scheme that must have looked fine on the computer.
It's going straight to my 'web page of woe! arrrgh!' overused routine of grrr.
I know people have lots of different monitors with lots of different settings, and I know the colors look entirely different on each of my laptops and my desktop, and I know some people have the brightness/contrast turned up a lot higher (sometimes when I have a headache the brightness goes down to single figures and I can still read it. One time with a headache I could read by the glow from the TV when it had a theoretically black screen. Old TV though.) So I have to assume that everyone who builds a webpage can see it. But really, black on white is classic for a *reason*.
And white on black only works on a nice crisp screen, not a fuzzy printout.
/rant
It's going straight to my 'web page of woe! arrrgh!' overused routine of grrr.
I know people have lots of different monitors with lots of different settings, and I know the colors look entirely different on each of my laptops and my desktop, and I know some people have the brightness/contrast turned up a lot higher (sometimes when I have a headache the brightness goes down to single figures and I can still read it. One time with a headache I could read by the glow from the TV when it had a theoretically black screen. Old TV though.) So I have to assume that everyone who builds a webpage can see it. But really, black on white is classic for a *reason*.
And white on black only works on a nice crisp screen, not a fuzzy printout.
/rant