i would also prefer a more neutral grey. i'm curious as to how designers choose greys in their palette. is there something wrong with just using equal amounts of rgb, e.g. #666666 or hsl(0, 0%, 50%)? do these values not show up as "true grey" on some displays?
I don't think an optional dark-mode should be expected to accommodate all people with visual disabilities. On the contrary, given the diversity of visual impairments and personal preferences people have, I don't think any stylesheet can reasonably be expected to accommodate all people, which is precisely why support for multiple stylesheets is important.
Why should't the default dark mode fulfill basic contrast requirements (in this case WCAG AA is absolutely possible)? It's not difficult to achieve, and the same problem would exist if the website was in "dark mode" by default.
A website that is bright by default isn't accessible to some people with photophobia (which has a myriad of causes). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia But some people have precisely the opposite sort of issue.
I maintain that no stylesheet can be accessible to everybody. If any accessibility-assessment tool says otherwise, that reflects a failure of that tool to consider some classes of visual impairment.
i can't tell you how much i struggle on a daily basis with websites who have passed these "standards". i don't even have anything serious. i just can't read small text well.
so my browser zoom is 150% by default which i adjust if it's too big. that all i did!
my setting has broken major sites on a daily basis. that tool that another poster linked is broken on my side! that's the tool that's telling people they are not following standards...
Didn't perceive it as rude, but don't understand what my ability has to do with my critique. The contrast in OP's dark mode stylesheet is trivially fixed by making the font lighter.
One of the issues in "vanilla" HN is made worse in this dark version.
HN's site makes use of rather small font sizes for subtext. In the dark version the contrast between background and subtext is low (below 4.2:1). It would be fine were it 18 or 24 px.
But it is not.
Not really a big deal, but when viewed in a dark environment I seem to be noticing the triangles more strongly than before. Maybe make them hollow?
Also extremely minor to the point of being negligible, I notice in Firefox on a 1200 pixel monitor the bottom row displayed is 30 and I roughly cut in half while standard (actual) HN row 30 is about 2 pixels above the bottom.
Is there a discussion page demo, but with actual discussion?
Makes this website look like muddy water but I use dark reader[1] for all my web browsing. Ironically the only place it doesn't work is on the firefox addon page.
for security reasons extensions cannot run on the mozilla addons site.
btw many years ago i made something similar to darkreader, for some users it may be faster and more reliable but i also highly recommend dark reader too:
Thanks for putting out a working demo. Maybe if you could whip up a way for folks to tweak the basics, we could have a way to "vote". Hopefully that would prevent any "DarkModeGate" fiasco where only a minority ends up liking it.. /thought
I hardly ever use dark mode because it’s usually done in a way that has too much contrast for me. This demo seems to pick the right balance - a bit like Apple have done with theirs - and I’d actually consider switching to it on mobile HN if it was an option.
Maybe it should also color the top bar for smartphone?
For example, when I load facebook.com on brave, the top bar becomes blue.
Not sure if it's a brave feature for a few selected sites, or a browser api used by Facebook.
For iOS I use Hack https://apps.apple.com/us/app/hack-for-hacker-news-yc/id1464... . The app has an excellent dark mode.