[layer8]

The more universal solution would be to standardize Reader Mode compatibility, and for browsers to let users configure how they want Reader Mode to look.

In other words, instead of an n x m solution where every web site has to cater to each different user preference, there should be a simplified content view that every web site only has to support in a singular way, and that allows browsers to cater to the various user preferences.

[apparent]

This likely would have happened already if it weren't for Google's hostility to Reader Mode. It's hilarious to see the Reader Mode that they offer, where it's a resizable 2-column view, to ensure that ads are loaded and kept in sight. We get it, Google: you don't want to endanger your ad revenue.

[duskdozer]

But wait - Reader Mode messes with our branding, nudges, and calls to action, and breaks my sleek, modern animations and scroll effects.

[a96]

Shh, don't tell web designers about reader mode! They'll try to break it!

[f33d5173]

It's just n x 2 for light and dark themes.

[layer8]

The comment I was responding to was suggesting n x 6. And there are also aspects beyond brightness and contrast, like font styles and sizes, line height and margins, justification and hyperlink style, and so on. The things you can or want to configure in an e-book reader.

[hakfoo]

I feel like we could go beyond that, especially for more app-like experiences. Maybe we want themes that do things like "add specific trim to make editable fields more identifiable." or adding "high contrast" versions of the themes for low-quality screens or low-vision users.

There's no reason a webpage shouldn't be as themable as, say, a GTK or Qt based desktop application.

We should be trying to snatch back styling power from the designers and putting it back on the user-agent's side. Let the page look brutalist until the user has chosen an appropriate theme for their needs rather than railroading them into what someone in Marketing decided looked good.