From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Copley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CSS contrast (#30295) (was Re: Heads-up: Emacs 26.1 RC1) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:34:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83muz2lfo9.fsf@gnu.org> <837eq5lvyx.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e0251b0567ea95ed" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521632018 25167 195.159.176.226 (21 Mar 2018 11:33:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:33:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Wiegley , Tom Tromey , Emacs Development To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 21 12:33:34 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eybzq-0006Sx-2a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:33:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54100 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyc1t-0007fw-3J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:35:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44573) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyc1h-0007dk-N9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:35:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyc1d-0000iM-Iy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:35:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ot0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a]:46470) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eyc1X-0000gy-1z; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:35:19 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ot0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id g97-v6so5185573otg.13; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 04:35:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/KpDSFFKLzm+OeDl+Xs4oEdVn+o56mXByN+iKuu6M80=; b=oMSkMjm683GHd00zdNX33XFvdir1KTMn+Yv2Id2Q/UEsYG4D+nGZ7J03Jdm5CY7gLO Ufv3pxYSWL71/Uoto3KjhazZVfUZl7lvQp59I7/9vi3o15Rf0wlOVUiryKgyoy1nXUEO T/h92eDzPXygiX4fyFL7T3GNU0TisWmQKr0Evjn7DdlVSNKkbdE/5gKGGhMznUvR4fPd AAB6/Y7H8UvBko8T2rW2aMWvE7GCPaagCE2uRMc7rAq9024mCsyL+ZWnxgsyc89jMcnd 7FVmx8a1/5Eh4ncQJvHbkhTPkgdDnD6yOGzlLIb3Q9ICWOC2p0aXcRPeVpuZX62fo5mU 8nwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/KpDSFFKLzm+OeDl+Xs4oEdVn+o56mXByN+iKuu6M80=; b=deCzqJdL0tYUfhd7monzqQpR4mFXX3ETiFv2ztWl85Vlt46VOHhN/C5W9NEqyXJ0EC d0KggoHNoApVEYIwKe5ceCx9ordWBph89fWrizbGe4trs3z1iNeI4sp48UUzbfS2iv/R x5n4jgjBeinyNp4DTPkNaqXdqrHiF2jmZcuqS3daJ0DZeuxixIMixcY1Qbh/0f+BS/37 Zai1YtLAx68DpYNBn3Oz0PsUF24ZHvyTNw0Nv470s5UupIcq4dkP5Svn6bU72WPin+Fu IAvN5jtkrdFudtBIIvLTVO/XjRBfaRdJT9Cnh04UyZ81OjVaKmpiqdg3JRtmzvpwwSn3 6iXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Hl4Ygo3SdTd8nu/SUSwKqn3uCDSsy4VP/u0kE0mgIhfkQPvjS2 ZghWfSgVpUQrKLZCVKk0uIwTTFrATVVvuY2Cpj3aP9qr X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+4+58OLIaXFSWXdaUJMamiPne0fLB/IVPk8hiwXYa4Qs15wpN1JA6oi4TQuU+2vbCVuzrrvhLQ+e8S1CQRfro= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:550b:: with SMTP id l11-v6mr4085557oth.356.1521632118054; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 04:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 2002:a9d:4c87:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 04:34:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:223883 Archived-At: --000000000000e0251b0567ea95ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 21 March 2018 at 09:59, Richard Copley wrote: > On 21 March 2018 at 07:38, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> > From: Richard Copley >> > Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:56:12 +0000 >> > Cc: John Wiegley , Tom Tromey , >> > Emacs Development >> > >> > Patch 1 is a small fix for the current formula using color-distance. >> > Patch 2 uses luminance as in Tom's original patch. >> > I think patch 2 gives better contrast. >> >> Thanks, but I think this is a step backward, as it more or less goes >> back to the code before the discussion of bug#25525. >> > > Patch 2 does, yes. It's good to step backwards, because (the effect of) > the original code was OK, whereas the current code leads to unreadable text. > > How about making the threshold a customizable value instead, with the >> current hard-coded value the default? That'd be compatible, and >> should allow you to get the contrast of your liking. >> > > It sounds like you want to insist that white-on-pale-green is somehow > better than black-on-pale-green, or that there's some other consideration > that's more important. > I don't understand. > To put it another way: Your argument seemed to be that Tom's original criterion (use white text on backgrounds with luminance <50%) was invented by Tom. Is the current criterion (use white text on backgrounds inside a sphere of a given radius centred on black, in the color-distance metric space) a standard way of doing things? I'm not saying that the luminance-less-than-50% calculation is a standard, either, but I've seen it used before, which is more than I can say for the color-inside-a-sphere calculation. I'm also not saying that color-distance is any more or less "invented" than luminance. I do believe that color-distance is less relevant here than luminance is. I also believe that black text is more readable than white text, on a pale green background. --000000000000e0251b0567ea95ed Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 21 March 2018 at 09:59, Richard Copley <rcopley@gmail.= com> wrote:
= On 21 March 2018 at 07:38, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org= > wrote:
> From: Richard Copley <rcopley@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:56:12 +0000
> Cc: John Wiegley <johnw@gnu.org>, Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Emacs Development <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>
> Patch 1 is a small fix for the current formula using colo= r-distance.
> Patch 2 uses luminance as in Tom's original patch.
> I think patch 2 gives better contrast.

Thanks, but I think this is a step backward, as it more or less goes=
back to the code before the discussion of bug#25525.
<= br>
Patch 2 does, yes. It's good to step backwards, be= cause (the effect of) the original code was OK, whereas the current code le= ads to unreadable text.

How about making the threshold a customizable value instead, with the
current hard-coded value the default?=C2=A0 That'd be compatible, and should allow you to get the contrast of your liking.

It sounds like you want to insist that white-on-pale-green is somehow = better than black-on-pale-green, or that there's some other considerati= on that's more important.
I don't understand.

To put it another w= ay:
Your argument seemed to be that Tom= 's original criterion (use white text on backgrounds with luminance <= ;50%) was invented by Tom.
Is the current criterion (use white text on b= ackgrounds inside a sphere of a given radius centred on black, in the color= -distance metric space) a standard way of doing things?

I'm not saying that the luminance-less-than-50% calculation is a=20 standard, either, but I've seen it used before, which is more than I ca= n say for the color-inside-a-sphere calculation.
I'm also not saying that color-= distance is any more or less "invented" than luminance.

I = do believe that color-distance is less relevant here than luminance is.
=
I also believe that black text is more readable than white text,= on a pale green background.

--000000000000e0251b0567ea95ed--