Development Pages


More Sensitive than Images
ext on screen seems to be more sensitive than images. An image is generally quite accommodating, it can be quite fuzzy but still recognisable. But I suppose text performs a more personal function. people want to be able to read it and to feel comfortable when doing so.
Readability is one of those things that, once people start thinking about it, they can get quite particular on. Better not to think about it really, just get on with it. But of course if the difference between the colour of a piece of text and its background is small, in other words if both are of a similar brightness, then it might be more difficult to read than one where the contrast between brightnesses is greater.
This text is readable though may be hard work in large passages.
This text is less challenging, though maybe less exciting than the one to the left.
Both those panels are the same hues, they are both magenta – 280° on the colour circle – on orange – 35° on the colour circle – but at different levels of saturation and brightness. You can do this with red and green too, they’re said by some people to be unreadable one over the other, and so they are if the brightness levels are close, but not if the brightnesss levels aren’t close, and note this applies as much to people with colour vision deficiencies as it does to anyone else.
One can start to get into hot water here, because people often like to believe what they have been told. I’m less interesting in all that. Just try the experiments.
Note too that where the brightness difference between text and background is small, larger text will be easier to distinquish than text that is smaller.
This text is just about readable though hard work especially in large passages.
This text is less challenging, because it is bigger text than that to the left.
All good fun. You can experiment with text of one colour over a background of a different colour on my page Text Readability in Colour.


admin login
Dave Collier, his fawts and fearies . . . email me . . .