[kagamine]

Grey text on a white background is generally accepted as easier on the eye/mind when reading sentences, whereas on the header it is not necessary, it's just one word, there is no train of thought to follow there. This would be considered good UX [source: I don't have anything to link to right now, but I do have a degree in Interaction Design]

The rest of your points get top marks and I hope to Cod that someone at Apple is listening. The power button on the keyboard is retarded (no other word for it, sorry), super glossy screens so you can't even see it in your own house.

As for Apple shortcuts, well, many make perfect sense and this isn't something anyone else does better. MS Word even changes them depending upon system language, so Word in Norwegian uses Ctrl+F for "fett" or bold. Imagine how annoying that is when someone asks you for help. It happens at application level too, especially with non-US keyboards, just press ctrl+[ to access this feature, and no you cannot remap the shortcuts. Well, dandy, I can't access [ without pressing 2 other keys already. So I'll just press the X in the corner instead.

[TuringTest]

> Grey text on a white background is generally accepted as easier on the eye/mind when reading sentences

That may the single most propagated unfounded myth in UI design this decade. [1] While it's true that pure black on pure white causes problems for some dyslexic users, there is also a _minimum_ required contrast [2], which is routileny ignored by many "stylish" web sites.

The plague of contrast-less "light grey on white" have been adopted by plenty of "web 3.0" sites out of following fashionable trends, to the point of making them unreadable.

I've been forced to place a "Contrast" bookmarklet on the toolbar of all my browsers to fix all those terrible contrast-less pages I found everywhere, and I'm forced to use it dozens of times a day to alleviate my aching eyes. (Hexadecimal #333 is my personal upper level of comfort on white backgrounds, anything above that begins physically hurting my eyes when reading any kind of long text).

[1] http://contrastrebellion.com/

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/AERT#color-contrast

[kagamine]

Notice I said grey, not light grey. Good designers will understand that there has to be a contrast between the background and the foreground. There will always be some who misinterpret the rules.

The first site you linked could exist for any design principle found on the web, just change the pattern to fit. The example they give also has negative text-shadow (engraved effect). That is not evidence of anything. Anyone could make a website with focus on a single design error like that.

The W3 link doesn't support your argument either, as all they are saying is to make sure there is enough contrast, not that grey text is wrong. They also include "provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits" in the title, which I took to mean people with impaired sight. IF you want to go down the rabbit hole that's is more than 1% of the www friendly toward people with accessibility problems you will be lost in there until rabbits evolve to live in houses.

Think of the kindle, is that black text on a white page? Now search for why people like e-readers over tablets, you will see that black on white is not good for the eyes.

[TuringTest]

> There will always be some who misinterpret the rules.

Right, though the problem is when the misinterpretation takes on a life of its own and it's propagated as a good practice, as it happened with light grey and its purported benefits to dyslexic readers. This practice is too widespread to be left unadressed without correction.

As for e-readers, the newer models of the Kindle and other competitors have darker text over whiter background as a selling point, and the early grey-on-grey was touted as a huge limitation of the format. I've tried both and I clearly prefer the high-contrast versions.

Also, people prefer e-readers because they are based on reflective light instead of emiting LEDs - it has nothing to do with them having grey text.

[__z]

I, too, have problems reading many websites that insist on using light grey. Perhaps off black would be better to read but the misuse of grey text has a real world effect on people who are older and/or people with bad eyesight. Off black and grey aren't the same thing. I am baffled by designers coming in and discounting the people who say "this is hard to read for me" with "no it isn't."

For me, I open up firebug and change the text to black. It is amazing how often I can't read something some "designer" thought looked good with a complete disregard for functionality.

I am wondering (serious question) if grey on white is so easy on the eyes why are all books (as far as I'm aware) published with black text?

[kagamine]

> why are all books published with black text?

One of the web's greatest problems has been defining itself in relation to printed media. From use of font types, colour and page layout, margins and line spacing, the web is not on printed paper. Why do you think the two are the same?

I am not disputing that there is a lot of bad design out there, one of my personal peeves is tiny text. I've seen real UX people use a 9pt font because it looks good on their screen, but is impossible to read on anything else and when you don't hold your face 4 inches from the glass.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, one of the problems with UX is the number of "experts" who are self-taught. It's like web-design/development circa 2001, everyone was claiming to be a "web-dev" but in practice hardly any could do more than basic html & tables. UX, imo, is like that now.

[__z]

>Why do you think the two are the same?

I do not. I was asking a question that if we have become enlightened because of digital media why hasn't some of those best practices translated back to traditional media? Maybe they have, I don't know, I can't recall noticing. If off-black is done well it isn't noticed because it doesn't look jarring anyways so perhaps we are all reading off black books. Not really sure. It was just an inquiry.

[kagamine]

> I've tried both and I clearly prefer

I think we can end this debate here.

[TuringTest]

> I think we can end this debate here.

We could have done that when you said "why people like e-readers over tablets" :-P

[coldpie]

> I've been forced to place a "Contrast" bookmarklet on the toolbar of all my browsers

Could you please share these? I'm not web-programming-savvy enough to make anything that'd be generally useful.

[TuringTest]

I didn't make it myself, I found it here:

http://megpickard.com/2011/06/nifty-bookmarklet-to-make-web-...

This reminds me that I didn't thank the author enough, I'll have to drop her a line.

[coldpie]

That is wonderful, thanks for the link!

[coldpie]

> Grey text on a white background is generally accepted as easier on the eye/mind when reading sentences

This sounds like wives-tale baloney. Please disregard this "advice" and make your text readable. The text on this page from Apple is too low contrast.

[kagamine]

Feeling a bit confrontational today are we? Call it what you will, but this is "generally accepted" which means exactly what it says. You seem to have confused "this user's opinion" with "what the textbooks say". Still, I'm open to hear about all the UX books you have read.

[coldpie]

You don't need to read a textbook to see users complain about it, or to know that I go out of my way to fix low-contrast webpages to make them easier to read. Poke around elsewhere in this thread. Check out <http://contrastrebellion.com/ >.

[kagamine]

That's the same link I debunked earlier in this thread. Just because someone made a website about something does not make it a real thing. I know there are a lot of sites that do text wrongly, not just colour, but size and font too, but they don't all need a movement.