611
Dark mode’s bright future: How dark mode will transform Wikipedia’s accessibility (diff.wikimedia.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 165 points 2 years ago (11 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

    EDIT: Actually, thanks for reminding me. I've never donated to Dark Reader, and it looks like they ask for a $10 donation if you use it regularly, and that plugin has dramatically improved my Web-browsing experience. Going to do that now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    "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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent