From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Darkening font-lock colors Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:10:33 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87d47hoox5.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zlahrggt.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <87tz0pg1uk.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <4A76481C.6000602@harpegolden.net> <87hbwp32ep.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <5908857581A447C3865D9DD2BA70BA16@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1249352121 21874 80.91.229.12 (4 Aug 2009 02:15:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 02:15:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David De La Harpe Golden , Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Juri Linkov , Dan Nicolaescu , Stefan Monnier , Miles Bader To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 04 04:15:14 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MY9YW-0004yJ-Rc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:15:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45758 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MY9YW-0007nj-6z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:15:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MY7c4-0004EZ-KO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:10:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MY7by-00044A-CM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:10:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51216 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MY7bw-00042y-62 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:10:36 -0400 Original-Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]:34936) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MY7bt-0007N5-Jn; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:10:33 -0400 Original-Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b6so2767670ana.21 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:10:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8yX2bJrHZU/XErO3NrWiRapGUZNByhOxM+Oz2rPiPIo=; b=GpExwsoFRDwWUqo1SdphQx53PnRGWzMV5aN7brEz4qfnf4Es3f3c7X0ufJSuYfmz+/ dXu6CDOXC5vlkEsO8UjQ9S3N0+SLZzXyYKJ0CY5wWj69ZrGeLHz4lE0KFlGOSUFmBC19 UUKmqHFYsSeUyqy2yfb/S0zs1ASGpKObO1uUY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wVgepmWmmE+94dpTHwz/uEePFQQKXqwoWsbk7y37LKQKJ+vqTmjTgS44HFiIA2HHRI PgmA74z8lrLBPqRw2uspdPrOTgOaGHVZmUIFmFZuPM/Zj3YqoHqmeyDEYKMG5jAzN7pT nGAZtAt8EcGOb6LjKiwJNulsilsb0TVNVbBnU= Original-Received: by 10.100.197.2 with SMTP id u2mr9051135anf.138.1249344633161; Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:10:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5908857581A447C3865D9DD2BA70BA16@us.oracle.com> X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:113643 Archived-At: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Drew Adams wrote: >> Maybe, but a good default is also good to have. > > Yes, a _good_ default. My point was that if you start trading off between > accessibility, usability, and who-knows-what-else, the result might not be so > good. I have not talked about trading off. I have said the reverse that we do not have to do that. We can meet the requirement for accessibility (as specified by WCAG) and still have room for usability changes. >> > 2. FWIW, I am against having both foregrounds and >> I think it is helpful that makes for exampel comments stand out a bit >> as I said because it holds those pieces of text together and a bit >> apart from other text. This is the same use they often have in a web >> page. > > We will agree to disagree. One person's stands-out-nicely is another person's > annoying distraction. > >> However the color difference must be small otherwise the text with a >> background color will perhaps stand out to much. I think there is a >> balance between standing out too much or too little. >> >> In what way do you think it distracting? > > See above. Yes, but if you tell me more I can maybe suggest something better. >> > Also, they look odd when over trailing whitespace. >> >> I see no visual problem there. Can you tell me what you see? > > It won't convince you, but even without trailing whitespace, I find large chunks > of faces with fg and bg to look odd against the page background. It's like > putting boxes around each line of text. If it looks good to you, fine. Just one > opinion. > > A face that has the same background (i.e. no background) as the page looks like > text on the page. A face that has no foreground looks like highlighting. Both > are good. > > A face that has a foreground and a background that is different from the page > looks like a boxed heading. And a chunk of such text doesn't look like a > rectangular text box. It looks like a set of Lego blocks, with varying right > edges due to different line lengths. It sounds like it looks very different on your display. Could you perhaps show an image?