To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.geekOpen lugnet.off-topic.geek in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Geek / 1186
1185  |  1187
Subject: 
Re: gnome-terminal colors
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.geek
Date: 
Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:19:26 GMT
Viewed: 
120 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Dan Boger writes:
I'm pretty sure God meant for terminals to be white-on-black.

I have to agree to that, but some people just have to be different :P

I've never been able to read white-on-black (or gray-on-black) text
comfortably at small point sizes, due to the way raster CRT displays scan.

White-on-black characters are constructed like this:
      _______
    _(_______)_
   (_)       (_)
   (_)_______
     (_______)_       _____
    _        (_)     (_____)
   (_)_______(_)     (_____)
     (_______)       (_____)

and depending on the monitor's settings, and the particular shade of
white/gray being used, and lots of other things like the pixel clock rate
and the quality of the hardware, white-on-black characters can come out
looking as bad as this:
      _______
     (_______)
    ()       ()
    ()_______
     (_______)         ___
             ()       (___)
    ()_______()       (___)
     (_______)        (___)

That is, single-pixel vertical white/gray lines come out thinner than single-
pixel horizontal white/gray lines, because it takes most consumer-grade
monitors a few nanoseconds to ramp the voltage from black to white.

But if you display black-on-white characters, then the black portions come out
perfectly solid, because black characters are made from the absense of ligh
rather than the presence of light:
   _________________________________
   _________________________________
   ______)_______(__________________
   ____) (_______)_(________________
   ____)_(__________________________
   ______)_______(__________________
   ______________) (_____)     (____
   ____)_(_______)_(_____)     (____
   ______)_______(_______)_____(____
   _________________________________


The readability problem is similar on LCD displays -- although for almost the
opposite reason in the underlying nature of the hardware.  On an LCD display,
the default pixel is white rather than black, and applying voltage results in
a black pixel rather than a white (or colored) pixel.  However, a blank white
LCD display usually has a very fine (but still visible) grid atop all of the
blank white pixels.  But fortunately, just like on a CRT (which has horizontal
artifact lines only), the grid becomes much less visible when display black
pixel-patches than white pixel-patches.  This is part of the reason why LCD
displays have always traditionally displayed black-on-white text by default.
(The other reason is that large black areas tended to flicker.)

Anyway, I've been using black-on-white text since 1975, so it's pretty burned
into my brain as the way I need to view text.

--Todd



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: gnome-terminal colors
 
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:08:53 GMT mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) wrote concerning 'Re: gnome-terminal colors': (...) I have to agree to that, but some people just have to be different :P Dan Boger - Georgetown Institute for Cognitive and (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

9 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR