[Python-Dev] Playing with a new theme for the docs, iteration 2

[Steven D'Aprano]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 12:32 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> On 25.03.2012 17:54, Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2012 2:34 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>>>> Here's another try, mainly with default browser font size, more 
>>>> contrast
>>>
>>> Untrue. You still changed the high contrast dark blue to the same low
>>> contrast light blue for builtin names, etc. What problem do you think
>>> you are trying to solve by making the doc difficult and even PAINFUL for
>>> me to read?
>>>
>>> - a lot more than 1
>>
>> "More contrast" was meant in comparison to iteration #1.
> 
> It is still subjectively dim enough to me that I could not tell from 
> memory.
> 
> I ran the following experiment: I put old and new versions of the buitin 
> functions page side-by-side in separate browser windows. I asked my 
> teenage daughter to come into the room, approach slowly, and say when 
> she could read one or both windows. At about 5 feet, she could (just) 
> read the old but not the new.

Do you often read things on your computer monitor from 5ft away?

While I sympathize with the ideal of making the docs readable, particular for 
those of us who don't have 20-20 vision, "must be readable from halfway across 
the room" is setting the bar too high. What is important is not *absolute* 
readability, but readability relative to the normal use-case of sitting at a 
computer under typical reading conditions.

To be honest here, I don't even know which elements you are having trouble 
with. I don't see any elements with such low contrast to cause problems at 
least not for me. Even with my glasses off, I find the built-in names to be no 
less readable as the vanilla text around it. E.g. on this page:

http://www.python.org/~gbrandl/build/html2/library/stdtypes.html

I see built-in names such as `int` and `str` are written as hyperlinks in 
medium blue on a white background. When I hover over the link, it becomes a 
touch lighter blue, but not enough to appreciably hurt contrast and readability.

I see literals such as `{}` in black on a pale blue-grey background. The 
background is faint enough that it is hardly noticeable, not enough to hurt 
contrast. So I don't know what you are speaking off when you say "the same low 
contrast light blue for builtin names, etc." -- can you give an example?


[...]
> Using a magnifying glass, the difference seems to be more one of 
> thickness -- 2 pixel lines versus 1-1.5 pixel lines. I have astigmatism 
> that is only partly correctable and the residual blurring of 
> single-pixel lines tends to somewhat mix text color with the background 
> color.

For what it's worth, it wouldn't surprise me if the problem is the fallback 
font. If I'm reading the CSS correctly, the standard font used in the new docs 
  is Lucinda Grande, with a fallback of Arial. Unfortunately, Lucinda Grande 
is normally only available on the Apple Mac, and Arial is a notoriously poor 
choice for on-screen text (particularly in smaller text sizes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucida_Grande

suggests fallbacks of Lucida Sans Unicode, Tahoma, and Verdana. Could they 
please be tried before Arial?

E.g. change the font-family from

font-family: 'Lucida Grande',Arial,sans-serif;

to

font-family: 'Lucida Grande','Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida 
Sans',Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;

or similar.


-- 
Steven