It may be possible to follow most/all such advice when building an app or website, but surely it is not possible for presentations (which have to be consumed in the same format by everyone present). Some may hate dark text on a light background; others may find that the only suitable format.[1] So when I read posts like these, I don't view them as imperatives ("never do X") but rather as data points to be factored into decision-making processes.
This is easiest when the post explains the problem and gives various alternatives and explains why they provide a better experience. When they just leave it at "never do X", I'm left wondering whether Y is better than Z or vice-versa. I wish the author had given more context about why this is bad for astigmatism, or what sorts of things are better than others (in terms of ranking alternatives).
1: I hear from people who say that the only decent color scheme for BeeLine Reader (my text accessibility startup) is bright red and bright blue. But other people tell me that color scheme is terrible and shouldn't be the default on my website because it is so bad. You literally cannot please all of the people all of the time! [edited]
Stark black text on stark white background can do this, even though stark white background washes out the color artifacts to some extent. Fortunately, it's extremely unusual for anyone to lay out a page as #000 text on a #FFF background.
White text on a black background is a strobing hell. A dead black background is the perfect place to notice visual artifacts. Blazing white text sets visual artifacts effectively. Regardless, I use light-on-dark for much of my work. The problem I run into is that websites often end up being white-on-black, not light-on-dark. Light (not-white) text on a dark (not-black) background is pleasant, and my normal configuration for work.
Web design tutorials typically point out that #000 text on #FFF background is bad, and avoiding such extreme contrasts can be easier on the eyes. For whatever reason, that bit of know-how seems to vanish as soon as it's flipped to "dark mode".
Honestly it seems like this three-way comparison is excellent evidence for the need for user-configurable reading options. It is unfortunate that on mobile, there are no browser plugins (except Firefox on Android, which is little-known, and action extensions on Safari, which is both little-known and does not support persistently-running plugins). As the world has gone mobile, we've ended up working/reading in app silos that cannot be made more accessible/configurable by plugins.
In fact I often create white on black content because it is easy for me to author and read. I also have significant color blindness and am totally unsure which color combinations are hard for others to read, may not show up on a projector, may be a faux pas or may be gaurish.
And this is the profound difficulty of creating accessible content. What is accessible for one is often not accessible for others with a different disability. Simply saying don't do this or don't do that has long ceased to be considered a good method of creating accessible content. This has been abandoned in favor of using a broad suite of tools to validate content meets a wide array of accessibility needs.
Edit: I have never looked into whether such a tool exists for common slide presentation apps.
Not really a fan of the ranty style without a solution.
On top of that, like another commentor mentioned, people with astygmatism typically wear glasses or contacts?
It won't help with pictures as easily, though a few apps these days do full PDF renders in different colours without much hassle.
I am definitely in the no black background white text camp and on the web I have a javascript bookmarklet to zap the colour CSS and make everything rather plain looking. It's not all text for me, but particularly dense text is unreadable, even with my glasses on.
How can anyone stand staring directly into a bright lamp all day long? Well, having gotten used to it, you don't notice how unhealthy it truly is.
At home during the night I have to turn the blue filter up until the monitor is practically glowing orange-red.
It would be somewhat surprising otherwise-- the relevant part of vision for this is linear and should work the same in both directions. Though if the room is so dark that my puples will be dilated then that is obviously going to cause a loss of acuity ... but if that is what the author is going for then the advice should be to not present in a pitch black room.
In a dimmer room I have a small preference for white (or green/amber) on black so that the overall brightness isn't blowing out my vision.
Blue focuses noticeably worse, so I have serious trouble reading things like blue on black or black on blue... esp if the blue is some fancy LED sign or something that uses a shorter wavelength.
I think articles like this that don't support their advice with some kind of study of many people ... is pretty low value because it's too likely to just be repeating the author's own personal preferences and disguising them as research supported Truths.
Safer advice would be: Some people have poor vision, make your text extra big and clear even if you could read something less legible.
I am sympathetic to those with disabilities different from my own. As a presenter, I would be happy to provide reasonable accommodations. Given the vast array of visual disabilities, I wonder if there is not some kind of common denominator solution, like providing a plain text, screen-reader-compatible version in advance.
I’m actually thinking, I wonder if I should build a service where one: 1. Uploads slides. 2. Gets a QR code. 3. Puts the QR code on the title slide. 4. Attendees point their smart phones at the presentation to get a: a. downloadable copy of the slides b. alternate versions c. other materials like the presenter’s LinkedIn d. a field for posting questions
If someone reads this and wants to build it, please go ahead.
The reason is very simple: There's less light coming from the screen into my eye.
Every monitor I've ever owned I reduce the brightness to the lowest setting possible, and they are still too bright.
Green is best because the high resolution parts of your eye only see green. So the blue and red components of white are just unnecessary extra light.
(Seriously, though, there may be an underlying physiological reason why the glow of a green phosphor CRT was so pleasing...)
But there is an underlying physiological reason, see: https://gamesx.com/misctech/visual.htm (the website is very old and has aged badly, but makes the point).
Your eye has no ability to see blue in high resolution.
(Interestingly enough, I too have an astigmatism in one eye, but I don't know if that's the sole cause of my discomfort.)
any suggestions? my intuitive response to this would be black on brightly hued navy blue, but i worry that is also low-contrast, which also causes issues.
can't please everyone!
the benefits of a physical white background is because your lighting will make background/subject evenly lit, but on a computer screen, the white just tends to overpower.
The worst are websites with white text on black backgrounds. Arstechnica used to do this, and I was unable to read more than a paragraph or two. Then when I would leave and go back to normal sites, I would have all kinds of weird ghost blocks in my vision (character sized).
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/mourning-has-broken...
... but if the room is so dark that the presentation background alone is all that is keeping my eyes from dialating, then I'm going to find the presentation uncomfortably bright.