[binarycrusader]

I think you're being a bit overdramatic, or there's a difference between your configuration and mine (FireFox Desktop). I find it quite readable, pleasantly so even.

[sp332]

The color of the body text is (102,102,102). That cuts your contrast just about in half.

[kuschku]

Which is awesome if you have a monitor with 1000 nits or more, as (0,0,0) to (255,255,255) has a blinding contrast on them.

The basic issue is that CSS colors are defined in terms of relative brightness of the monitor, and not within of a proper colorspace. Most browsers assume sRGB, but many users don’t even have that.

In sRGB, a contrast of (102,102,102) to (255,255,255) is a very pleasant, and perfectly readable contrast.

But many users are on shitty 6-bit color depth 100 nits or less displays.

[sp332]

So you intentionally have your monitor set uncomfortably bright, but it's everyone else's fault? And the solution is for everyone else to spend money to make your site look better? How about no.

[kuschku]

Not "uncomfortably bright". Those brightnesses are required for, for example, photo editing, and are useful when watching movies or gaming.

Changing contrast in hardware down is always a shitty option.

The solution is to handle this in hardware — artifically increase contrast and destroy image quality for people on shitty systems.

[sp332]

It may be a shitty option but at least you have the option. Unless you want your site to only be legible to photo editors with some money, you need it to have lots of contrast.

[kuschku]

> Unless you want your site to only be legible to photo editors with some money, you need it to have lots of contrast.

Or we simply fix browsers.

Because if it’s a choice between blinding users on most mobile devices, and most higher end desktop computers, or blinding those who have cheap hardware, most developers will choose by who is actually willing to pay.