By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,394 Members | 1,912 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,394 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

P: n/a
please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com

Feb 2 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
14 Replies


P: n/a
In article
<11*********************@s48g2000cws.googlegroups. com>,
"co*************@hotmail.com" <co*************@hotmail.com>
wrote:
please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com
Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read. You don't want that,
do you? Second, the text is too small exacerbating the problem.
Use font-size:100% at the body level and be careful from there
on. Third, why fix this particular page's width so? When I
enlarge the font to read, no more of the considerable spare width
space available in the browser is used. This makes for
unnecessary scrolling. Finally, I notice use of a slacker
doctype... best to use html 4.01 Strict. But otherwise, it looks
nice...

--
dorayme
Feb 2 '07 #2

P: n/a
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article
<11*********************@s48g2000cws.googlegroups. com>,
"co*************@hotmail.com" <co*************@hotmail.com>
wrote:
please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com

Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.
Can you give a citation for that? I have a dim recollection
of research that suggested that white on black was easier
for the partially sighted, but bad if the reader is having
to switch back and forth between reading white on black
(such as a paper document). This was back when everybody was
using VDUs and copy typing was common, so I imagine more
research has been done since then.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk
Feb 3 '07 #3

P: n/a
In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jón Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article
<11*********************@s48g2000cws.googlegroups. com>,
"co*************@hotmail.com" <co*************@hotmail.com>
wrote:
please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions
>
http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com
Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.

Can you give a citation for that? I have a dim recollection
of research that suggested that white on black was easier
for the partially sighted, but bad if the reader is having
to switch back and forth between reading white on black
(such as a paper document). This was back when everybody was
using VDUs and copy typing was common, so I imagine more
research has been done since then.
There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority. Let me just say that
this is my experience and I have been programmed to be your
average earthling by my martian minders. <g>

Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly. If the bet was big, you would
hold out longer, but only because of the bet!

Perhaps look at:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm

But better, hang around the website making forums and see the
general feeling about this matter. I think you will find for body
text, however attractive otherwise, dark on light is the way to
go. This does not apply so much to navigation and other stuff
that one does not actually sit there reading away at.

I have many times been tempted but have reversed course and am
glad of it.

Perhaps it is time for me to wheel out my lost cause. I have made
a version just for you Jon, with white text on black. I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

--
dorayme
Feb 3 '07 #4

P: n/a
dorayme wrote:
I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>
I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

Maybe this imprint then interferes with reading? I dunno. Just a random
thought, without much consideration.

--
K A Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid
Feb 3 '07 #5

P: n/a
In article <Xn*************************@212.23.3.119>,
K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.coedotyoukay.invalidwrote:
dorayme wrote:
I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

Maybe this imprint then interferes with reading? I dunno. Just a random
thought, without much consideration.
That's it! Thank you KA! That is how I should be printing and
showing my article then! I want to imprint some sense onto the
eyeballs of politicians and priests and popes...

--
dorayme
Feb 3 '07 #6

P: n/a
On 2007-02-03, K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.coedotyoukay.invalidwrote:
dorayme wrote:
>I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.
I get that too. It is not a pleasant sensation and if repeated too often
leads to a schizoid embolism.

It's not so bad if the foreground text is grey rather than white. I
actually sometimes use that in my text editor.
Feb 4 '07 #7

P: n/a
In article <sl*********************@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
On 2007-02-03, K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.coedotyoukay.invalidwrote:
dorayme wrote:
I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>
I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

I get that too. It is not a pleasant sensation and if repeated too often
leads to a schizoid embolism.
Look, if it is gong to cause any medical problems, I will take
the white on black version off... mmm... schizoid embolism eh?

--
dorayme
Feb 4 '07 #8

P: n/a
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jón Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.
Can you give a citation for that? I have a dim recollection
of research that suggested that white on black was easier
for the partially sighted, but bad if the reader is having
to switch back and forth between reading white on black
(such as a paper document). This was back when everybody was
using VDUs and copy typing was common, so I imagine more
research has been done since then.

There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority.
I wasn't asking for an argument from authority, I was asking
for a citation of some scientific research.
Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly.
That would still be anecdotal
Perhaps look at:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
Quoting this bit would be sufficient:

For example, Bauer and Cavonius (1980) found that
participants were 26% more accurate in reading text when
they read it with dark characters on a light background.
But better, hang around the website making forums and see the
general feeling about this matter.
Not better; it's far to likely to be influenced by fashion.
Perhaps it is time for me to wheel out my lost cause. I have made
a version just for you Jon, with white text on black.
No need to be condescending; I was asking for support for
your claim and you provided it. You might note that in the
page you listed, just before the bit I quote above, they
say:

most studies have shown that dark characters on a light
background are superior to light characters on a dark
background (when the refresh rate is fairly high).

and that last caveat probably explains the dimly recollected
research report: refresh rates were not particularly high
back when people were using VDUs.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk
Feb 4 '07 #9

P: n/a
K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.coedotyoukay.invalidwrites:
dorayme wrote:
I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.
On its own, that might just mean that the light text is too
bright. You can get a similar effect whichever way round it
is, if the brightness is high enough.
Maybe this imprint then interferes with reading?
That sounds likely, but speculations like this are no
substitute for properly controlled experiments.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk
Feb 4 '07 #10

P: n/a
In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jn Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jén Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
>
Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.
>
Can you give a citation for that?
There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority.

I wasn't asking for an argument from authority, I was asking
for a citation of some scientific research.
Fair enough in a way Jon. There is a difference, you are right.
But it is not such a simple matter as some might think. Citing
studies back and forth can actually come down, in many
circumstances, especially on newsgroups, to giant arguments from
authority. Perhaps you will see my point. But if you do not
agree, I am happy to explain further.

Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly.

That would still be anecdotal
I don't think this is quite the description in this case. True it
is not a study over significant numbers. It is often very
instructive for the wonderer about a question to actually get
down and dirty and see for themselves some stark things. The
point of my suggestion was not to see a little bit of white on
black but to really find yourself in a situation where that is
what you are stuck with. I was saying that I was confident that
most people would find the scene I am painting hard to live with
on a regular basis. I was just chatting with you.
Perhaps look at:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm

Quoting this bit would be sufficient:

For example, Bauer and Cavonius (1980) found that
participants were 26% more accurate in reading text when
they read it with dark characters on a light background.
I was less confident that this would satisfy than you because
there are other studies and I really have not mastered the
literature and (to hint at what i was saying before) it was a
selective piece of argument by authority on my part. Not to
deliberately mislead you but because my nose in these things
tells me this is a citation on the side of right. I could have
searched differently!

But better, hang around the website making forums and see the
general feeling about this matter.

Not better; it's far to likely to be influenced by fashion.
Perhaps, but I am meaning for one to sniff about with some
discrimination. One can get an idea of who is more flakey than
others.

Perhaps it is time for me to wheel out my lost cause. I have made
a version just for you Jon, with white text on black.

No need to be condescending; I was asking for support for
your claim and you provided it.
I am sorry you saw it this way. Perhaps it was a bit tacky to say
"just for you" but, in fact, I did it principally for you to test
for yourself! It happened to be one of the most convenient bodies
of text I had on hand and all I had to do was make a slight
change for a duplicate css sheet. I wanted you and others to
really have a look at a substantial body of text where one may
have to don a thinking cap and test for themselves the
irksomeness of the white on black.

I do notice that in all this, you are more impressed by one
citation than anything in your experience. Both my invitations to
you in this respect have not elicited anything about how you
personally react to white on black when it is is a serious
amount. We are not composing a scientific paper here, I was
interested to know how you felt.

--
dorayme
Feb 4 '07 #11

P: n/a
On Feb 4, 2:22 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrote:
In article <wfireit7q8....@calligramme.charmers>,
Jn Fairbairn <jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:


dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article <wfzm7vtrrk....@calligramme.charmers>,
Jén Fairbairn <jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.auwrites:
Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.
Can you give a citation for that?
There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority.
I wasn't asking for an argument from authority, I was asking
for a citation of some scientific research.

Fair enough in a way Jon. There is a difference, you are right.
But it is not such a simple matter as some might think. Citing
studies back and forth can actually come down, in many
circumstances, especially on newsgroups, to giant arguments from
authority. Perhaps you will see my point. But if you do not
agree, I am happy to explain further.
Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly.
That would still be anecdotal

I don't think this is quite the description in this case. True it
is not a study over significant numbers. It is often very
instructive for the wonderer about a question to actually get
down and dirty and see for themselves some stark things. The
point of my suggestion was not to see a little bit of white on
black but to really find yourself in a situation where that is
what you are stuck with. I was saying that I was confident that
most people would find the scene I am painting hard to live with
on a regular basis. I was just chatting with you.
Perhaps look at:
>http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
Quoting this bit would be sufficient:
For example, Bauer and Cavonius (1980) found that
participants were 26% more accurate in reading text when
they read it with dark characters on a light background.

I was less confident that this would satisfy than you because
there are other studies and I really have not mastered the
literature and (to hint at what i was saying before) it was a
selective piece of argument by authority on my part. Not to
deliberately mislead you but because my nose in these things
tells me this is a citation on the side of right. I could have
searched differently!
But better, hang around the website making forums and see the
general feeling about this matter.
Not better; it's far to likely to be influenced by fashion.

Perhaps, but I am meaning for one to sniff about with some
discrimination. One can get an idea of who is more flakey than
others.
Perhaps it is time for me to wheel out my lost cause. I have made
a version just for you Jon, with white text on black.
No need to be condescending; I was asking for support for
your claim and you provided it.

I am sorry you saw it this way. Perhaps it was a bit tacky to say
"just for you" but, in fact, I did it principally for you to test
for yourself! It happened to be one of the most convenient bodies
of text I had on hand and all I had to do was make a slight
change for a duplicate css sheet. I wanted you and others to
really have a look at a substantial body of text where one may
have to don a thinking cap and test for themselves the
irksomeness of the white on black.

I do notice that in all this, you are more impressed by one
citation than anything in your experience. Both my invitations to
you in this respect have not elicited anything about how you
personally react to white on black when it is is a serious
amount. We are not composing a scientific paper here, I was
interested to know how you felt.

--
dorayme- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
thanks for all th feedback

Feb 5 '07 #12

P: n/a
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jón Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority.
I wasn't asking for an argument from authority, I was asking
for a citation of some scientific research.

Fair enough in a way Jon. There is a difference, you are right.
But it is not such a simple matter as some might think. Citing
studies back and forth can actually come down, in many
circumstances, especially on newsgroups, to giant arguments from
authority.
Sure -- particularly with anything that involves applied
psychology, where subject groups are often very small.
I am sorry you saw it this way. Perhaps it was a bit tacky to say
"just for you" but, in fact, I did it principally for you to test
for yourself!
Oh, well, I can do that easily enough by changing a setting
on my terminals...
I do notice that in all this, you are more impressed by one
citation
Not one citation: what I meant was that if you provided me
with one citation it's an easy matter to find articles that
it cites and that cite it and get some idea where things
stand. As you've probably gathered, it's a long time since I
looked at this stuff, and getting you to provide the first
citation was easier than starting a search from scratch. I
suspect the study I was remembering was the Sloan 1977
mentioned in http://vision.psych.umn.edu/~legge/read5.pdf
(it would have been "recently published" when I heard of
it!). Actually, the paragraph in that pdf that mentions the
Sloan paper gives a reasonable summary.
than anything in your experience.
I'm not particularly interested in my experience; I know
what it is, and it's very little use to me in deciding how
to present things to other people.
Both my invitations to you in this respect have not
elicited anything about how you personally react to white
on black when it is is a serious amount. We are not
composing a scientific paper here, I was interested to
know how you felt.
Ambivalent, if you must know. On my laptop white-on-black
is acceptable enough (and useful when some idiot sets the
foreground colour to yellow...), but on a bigger screen it's
horrid.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@cl.cam.ac.uk
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2006-09-13)
Feb 5 '07 #13

P: n/a
In article <do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, dorayme writes:
>In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jón Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
>dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:
Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.

Can you give a citation for that? I have a dim recollection
of research that suggested that white on black was easier
for the partially sighted, but bad if the reader is having
to switch back and forth between reading white on black
(such as a paper document). This was back when everybody was
using VDUs and copy typing was common, so I imagine more
research has been done since then.

There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority. Let me just say that
this is my experience and I have been programmed to be your
average earthling by my martian minders. <g>

Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly.
Don't be so sure. I'm typing this in a white-on-black xterm. My xterms
have been set to this by default since 1992.

Something that I never noticed until now is that they have much tinier
fonts than I've ever been able to read in any Web page.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
COFFEE.SYS not found. Abort, Retry, Fail?



Feb 5 '07 #14

P: n/a
In article <20*************************@walkabout.empros.com> ,
ms******@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
In article <do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
dorayme writes:
In article <wf************@calligramme.charmers>,
Jón Fairbairn <jo***********@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrites:

Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly.

Don't be so sure. I'm typing this in a white-on-black xterm. My xterms
have been set to this by default since 1992.
When I bet, I take into account estimated probabilities. What
would be the chance that I offered a bet to you? If I had, maybe
I would lose it! <g>

Perhaps I would need to know what you email, whether you read
long spiels and stuff in them...

--
dorayme
Feb 6 '07 #15

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.