> > I primarily use dark mode when I am in the dark or in a dimly lit room. Having any light blasted right into my eyes hurts. And ruins my night vision. And also messes with my sleep.
> It’s almost like too tongue in cheek that you write exactly like the techbros the article talks about. Did you even try to read the article?
> [...]
> Anecdotal techbro proclamations that dark mode is easier to read has been categorically proven false. It’s not easier to read and it’s not less strain on your eyes.
I did, and I think this kind of reasoning is not wise or meaningfully scientific. Experiencing physical pain in the response to something when you see it is way more immediate and way more relevant to one's own decisions regarding that stimulus than some study about average effects across a population of people who have different eyes than you in a situation that you can only hope is sufficiently analogous to your actual usage. (Note that GP writes only about their own experience— their comment does not contain a general argument.)
The article in the OP mentions that things may be different for people with various eye conditions. Guess what? Experiencing pain from using light mode is pretty much a defining symptom of such conditions.
> Light sensitivity is a condition in which bright lights hurt your eyes. Another name for this condition is photophobia.
Through genetic testing, my sister has been diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease which is a cause of photophobia. Despite seeing eye doctors (including various specialists) her whole life, and knowing her entire life that bright light is painful for her, it took her decades to get that diagnosis.
According to your reasoning here, self-advocating for her health and accessibility based upon her own experience of her conditions would have been based on unworthy 'anecdotal proclamations' up until a few months ago.
Let's revisit that characterization:
> Anecdotal techbro proclamations that dark mode is easier to read has been categorically proven false. It’s not easier to read and it’s not less strain on your eyes.
It's very easy to find studies later than the date of the OP challenging this view on eye strain with respect to dark mode, including ones that consider the effects of blue light filters, e.g., https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9363189/
Why overcommit like that? How does that advance the credibility of any person or honor the science?
> It’s almost like too tongue in cheek that you write exactly like the techbros the article talks about. Did you even try to read the article?
> [...]
> Anecdotal techbro proclamations that dark mode is easier to read has been categorically proven false. It’s not easier to read and it’s not less strain on your eyes.
I did, and I think this kind of reasoning is not wise or meaningfully scientific. Experiencing physical pain in the response to something when you see it is way more immediate and way more relevant to one's own decisions regarding that stimulus than some study about average effects across a population of people who have different eyes than you in a situation that you can only hope is sufficiently analogous to your actual usage. (Note that GP writes only about their own experience— their comment does not contain a general argument.)
The article in the OP mentions that things may be different for people with various eye conditions. Guess what? Experiencing pain from using light mode is pretty much a defining symptom of such conditions.
> Light sensitivity is a condition in which bright lights hurt your eyes. Another name for this condition is photophobia.
https://www.healthline.com/health/photophobia
Through genetic testing, my sister has been diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease which is a cause of photophobia. Despite seeing eye doctors (including various specialists) her whole life, and knowing her entire life that bright light is painful for her, it took her decades to get that diagnosis.
According to your reasoning here, self-advocating for her health and accessibility based upon her own experience of her conditions would have been based on unworthy 'anecdotal proclamations' up until a few months ago.
Let's revisit that characterization:
> Anecdotal techbro proclamations that dark mode is easier to read has been categorically proven false. It’s not easier to read and it’s not less strain on your eyes.
It's very easy to find studies later than the date of the OP challenging this view on eye strain with respect to dark mode, including ones that consider the effects of blue light filters, e.g., https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9363189/
Why overcommit like that? How does that advance the credibility of any person or honor the science?