• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It does look like you currently need to be logged in to set the setting or set it each time; the default is light. It’d be kind of nice if it just used the browser “light” or “dark” preference.

    Maybe this is just temporary; they do say that the dark mode is “beta”.

  • thedudeabides@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Can’t imagine a scenario in which a person avoided using Wikipedia all their life till now just because things looked a bit brighter on screen.

    Dark mode makes things easier for its existing userbase (practically anyone with an internet wanting to learn) but that’s that

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe not avoid using entirely, but I can easily imagine someone that can’t use it for more that 10 minutes or so because the brightness causes them headaches.

      • thedudeabides@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That’s true, it will make things easier for the current users. But as I said, I doubt if it will increase the overall hits for Wikipedia or be a last straw for people hesitating to use the site

        • DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          But as I said, I doubt if it will increase the overall hits for Wikipedia or be a last straw for people hesitating to use the site

          Why the fuck do you think accessibility has anything to do with hits?

        • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s a pretty ableist attitude. You don’t really know how many people and how much are being affected and is easy to dismiss an accessibility option when you’re nor affected.

    • DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah, well, if you can’t imagine it, then all those people with visual impairments who haven’t been able to read the content previously simply must not exist! 🙄🤦‍♀️

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Someone had a dark mode style (which I just had to disable to get the new dark mode to work), but then you have to be signed in.

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not a 3rd party thing. It has been a wiki setting opened up with login for a long time now. Maybe it had some tweaks needed that finally got completed?

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not a 3rd party thing.

          No, I know. I had it set. It was in their list of themes somewhere.

          They just asked me to disable that before I could use their new dark mode.

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    But why the buttons? Just use

    media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {}
    

    done. The js-solution doesn’t seem to auto-adapt for me.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because, even though I use dark mode system-wide, I sometimes want to use websites in light mode. Until browsers implement a per-site toggle for the preferred color scheme, websites should offer one instead.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hate the pop up about it though. If I care that much, I’ll find it. Don’t use advertising tactics.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      i think the pop up is necessary as long as the button to open the appearance menu is still the incognito icon for whatever reason

    • otacon239@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t mind the pop up as much as I mind it being a pop up that tells you to go to another menu to change the setting. Why not just put the setting in the pop up?

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          No. It isn’t. The setting in the modal should act as a convenience component that doesn’t have any of its own data. It only modifies the value in the original source of truth. Once the modal has been used, it should never pop up again, as the assumption will be if the user has interacted with the modal, they are now aware of the setting and can set it themselves from the original source of truth. Unless of course you consider any feature speghettification

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s really not that complicated.

          You give the information on where the setting is, then have an “enable now” button that calls the exact same function as clicking the toggle on the other page does. Having multiple ways to do the same thing isn’t unusual and is trivial with properly designed code.

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’d rather be informed with a popup than have to remember to periodically check the settings in case they’ve maybe added dark mode. Tying this to “advertising tactics” is, well, ridiculous – they’re informing users about a new feature they might not otherwise learn about, not selling literally anything

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Surely there’s a better way than creating a floating modal dialogue in front of the content I came there to read.

        • BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Are you also upset when they do a donation drive and have a pre-article header literally asking for money?

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes, but not because the header is a distraction — it’s generally less obtrusive. I’m not convinced that they actually need the money to achieve the goals of the foundation, but that’s another matter of opinion in how I think they spend those funds. I’ve donated in the past.

      • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I use FF Focus (new private mode always) so EVERY TIME I GO THERE the popup is there. A bit annoying.

  • MrSoup@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If by trying to change just the color of text and its background, images and other containers would change color too that mean it is a css tagging issue. It is really trivial to correctly color just text and its container with dark theme leaving “custom” things hacked in html inside the page with light theme, people will contribute to make them darkable afterward.

  • TheRealCharlesEames@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Only skimmed the article: why did their initial theme color solution affect the media contents like international orange? Feels like that would be a non-starter…

    • Monomate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, Dark Reader is a godsend. I just got tired of all the light mode webpages and took matters into my own hands.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’m really surprised that it works as well as it does, given the insane amount of stuff that it interacts with. I’d think that it’d be way more fragile than it is.

        I’ll also add that while I very much prefer dark mode interfaces – staring at a light mode interface in the dark is kind of like staring into a headlamp – if I had a display that (a) was reflective rather than transmissive in the sun (like eink displays are) and (b) did reasonable automatic brightness adjustment, and © software consistently made use of a color range such that “standard light background” isn’t “set every pixel on the display to its maximum brightness”, I might be okay with light mode. If I had to pick just one, I’d choose dark mode, but if technology advances, I might be okay with light mode.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not a fan of dark reader. It has a weird blue tint to things. I much prefer Dark Background and Light Text. That extensions has a true black background.

    • deranger@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Native dark modes are better and have much less of a performance impact. It’s good as a stop gap though.

      • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        “Native”. That every webpage has to implement it themselves is sad. Could be a browser feature that overrides some colors on dark.
        Then again, with webapps, probably not.

        • ZeroPoke@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Funny enough they do. Before Dark Reader on Firefox on Android I had a Chrome flag that did the same thing. But Dark Reader does a better job IMO.

          • Æther@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Chrome flag works on some websites, but makes others completely unreadable. Do not recommend unless you can’t use dark reader

        • bamboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is sorta how dark reader and such works. It turns out that implementing dark mode for most websites is more complicated than inverting all the css colors. For example, some gray on white text might have enough contrast to be easily read, but when inverted the text is hard to discern or nearly invisible. Images too, they might have a white background but not look good when inverted. Native support is better

      • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Maybe. Does it make a big performance difference which css (dark reader or delivered by wiki) is used?

        Is it known how the default to dark mode setting is persisted if let’s say a plugin removed all the Wikipedia cookies on window close? A get or post parameter?

        Either way it’s a good thing that wiki offers a dark mode.

        • AProfessional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Dark reader is one of the heaviest extensions you use, lots of dom modifications. It also passes around far too much data between processes.

          • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            lots of dom modifications

            That’s good to know. These modifications are needed to replace the style sheet details, I guess?

            passes around far too much data between processes.

            What does this mean? Do you have a link where I could read up on the details? Thanks.

            • AProfessional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Webextensions get their own webprocess as well as running in the website. I don’t have a link but if you read their source they just pass a lot of data to their process to determine things (last i looked some years ago).

              There is a trade off of executing more things on the site vs transferring a lot of data. Either way it’s a heavy extension.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Native dark modes are better

        Agreed. Well, I don’t know if it’d deal with random images as well, as users can upload those.

        and have much less of a performance impact.

        For a number of sites, you can just get away with running Dark Reader in static mode and it works well enough. Considerably faster.