On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
wrote:

> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
> login the first time you use it).

Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no longer be
able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail, I assumed
I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to look into it.
I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
actually requires.

It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:

1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and

2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
your gmail account settings in your email client.

I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email client to pick
up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced my client
in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.

--
What you must understand is that, for today's left intellectuals, education is useful only to the extent that it endorses their prejudices. Beyond that, they refuse to go.

Roger Scruton

In message <kk62quFaabeU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
<tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
>wrote:
>
>> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
>> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
>> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
>> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
>> login the first time you use it).
>
>Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no longer be
>able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail, I assumed
>I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to look into it.
>I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
>actually requires.
>
>It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:
>
>1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and
>
>2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
>app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
>your gmail account settings in your email client.
>
>I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email client to pick
>up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced my client
>in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.

Ok all.

This has gone way over my head:-)

115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark on my display
but it is collecting mail and displays my archives which was a worry.

I note the possibility of this morphing into a paid service!

Perhaps pick it up after the Summer holidays.

Thanks all for the support.
>

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

> 115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark

Sounds like you might have got "dark theme" instead of "light theme"
easy to change under tools/add-ons and themes ...

On 17.8.23 10:13 am, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <kk62quFaabeU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
>>> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
>>> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
>>> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
>>> login the first time you use it).
>>
>>Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no longer be
>>able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail, I assumed
>>I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to look into it.
>>I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
>>actually requires.
>>
>>It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:
>>
>>1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and
>>
>>2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
>>app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
>>your gmail account settings in your email client.
>>
>>I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email client to pick
>>up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced my client
>>in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.
>
> Ok all.
>
> This has gone way over my head:-)
>
> 115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark on my display
> but it is collecting mail and displays my archives which was a worry.
>
> I note the possibility of this morphing into a paid service!
>
> Perhaps pick it up after the Summer holidays.
>
> Thanks all for the support.
>>
>

I'm not sure which of your buttons are too dark, but the Phoenity Icons
extension makes many of them nice and cheerfully coloured on my dark
mode display, and would help even in light mode.

--
Tetbury, Gloucestershire , UK

Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant - Tacitus

In message <kk6726Fas3oU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>Tim Lamb wrote:
>
>> 115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark
>
>Sounds like you might have got "dark theme" instead of "light theme"
>easy to change under tools/add-ons and themes ...

I have been poking around! Not realised what *themes* means!

Nope. Enabling *light theme* does not fix it.

Gone back to *auto*
>

--
Tim Lamb

In message <kk678jFa30lU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Henson
<bob.henson@outlook.com> writes
>On 17.8.23 10:13 am, Tim Lamb wrote:
>> In message <kk62quFaabeU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
>> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>>On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
>>>> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
>>>> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
>>>> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
>>>> login the first time you use it).
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no longer be
>>>able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail, I assumed
>>>I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to look into it.
>>>I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
>>>actually requires.
>>>
>>>It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:
>>>
>>>1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and
>>>
>>>2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
>>>app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
>>>your gmail account settings in your email client.
>>>
>>>I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email
>>>client to pick
>>>up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced my client
>>>in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.
>> Ok all.
>> This has gone way over my head:-)
>> 115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark on my
>>display
>> but it is collecting mail and displays my archives which was a worry.
>> I note the possibility of this morphing into a paid service!
>> Perhaps pick it up after the Summer holidays.
>> Thanks all for the support.
>>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure which of your buttons are too dark, but the Phoenity Icons
>extension makes many of them nice and cheerfully coloured on my dark
>mode display, and would help even in light mode.

Buttons for *get messages* write, address book, etc.

Poking around, I found the updates history which shows several recent
monthly upgrades culminating with 102.14.0 on the 3rd. of August 2023.
Presumably I could go back to that without much risk.
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 17/08/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
> wrote:
>
>> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
>> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
>> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
>> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
>> login the first time you use it).
>
> Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no longer be
> able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail, I assumed
> I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to look into it.
> I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
> actually requires.
>
> It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:
>
> 1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and
>
> 2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
> app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
> your gmail account settings in your email client.
>
> I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email client to pick
> up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced my client
> in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.
>
+1 (for outlook as well as gmail addresses)
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Tim Lamb wrote:

> Poking around, I found the updates history which shows several recent
> monthly upgrades culminating with 102.14.0 on the 3rd. of August 2023.
> Presumably I could go back to that without much risk.

Not really, because v115 will have "upgraded" things within your profile.

On 17.8.23 3:42 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <kk678jFa30lU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Henson
> <bob.henson@outlook.com> writes
>>On 17.8.23 10:13 am, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>> In message <kk62quFaabeU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>>>On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
>>>>> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
>>>>> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
>>>>> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
>>>>> login the first time you use it).
>>>>
>>>>Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no longer be
>>>>able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail, I assumed
>>>>I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to look into it.
>>>>I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
>>>>actually requires.
>>>>
>>>>It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:
>>>>
>>>>1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and
>>>>
>>>>2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
>>>>app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
>>>>your gmail account settings in your email client.
>>>>
>>>>I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email
>>>>client to pick
>>>>up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced my client
>>>>in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.
>>> Ok all.
>>> This has gone way over my head:-)
>>> 115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark on my
>>>display
>>> but it is collecting mail and displays my archives which was a worry.
>>> I note the possibility of this morphing into a paid service!
>>> Perhaps pick it up after the Summer holidays.
>>> Thanks all for the support.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure which of your buttons are too dark, but the Phoenity Icons
>>extension makes many of them nice and cheerfully coloured on my dark
>>mode display, and would help even in light mode.
>
> Buttons for *get messages* write, address book, etc.
>

Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
belonging to other apps.

https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn

Would that help?

--
Tetbury, Gloucestershire , UK

Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant - Tacitus

On 17 Aug 2023 at 18:23:35 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:

> Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
> belonging to other apps.
>
> https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn

Hmmm, dark mode. A solution looking for a problem. Last September I was at a
lunch in the village. I was sat next to a man who owns what used to be the
pub, an IT employment consultant, and a retired bloke living in a cottage next
to the church, of whom the Help Desk really would need to ask "Is the computer
plugged in and turned on?"

They'd both heard of Dark Mode, didn't use it and knew no one who did, and
considered it to be the height of lunacy. I'm inclined to agree (except
perhaps for LightRoom).

--
The EU Parliament. The only parliament in the world that can neither initiate nor repeal legislation.

Robert Kimbell

In message <kk73cnFa30nU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Henson
<bob.henson@outlook.com> writes
>On 17.8.23 3:42 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
>> In message <kk678jFa30lU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Henson
>> <bob.henson@outlook.com> writes
>>>On 17.8.23 10:13 am, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>> In message <kk62quFaabeU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
>>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>>>>On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
>>>>>> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
>>>>>> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
>>>>>> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
>>>>>> login the first time you use it).
>>>>>
>>>>>Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no
>>>>>longer be
>>>>>able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail,
>>>>>I assumed
>>>>>I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to
>>>>>look into it.
>>>>>I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
>>>>>actually requires.
>>>>>
>>>>>It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:
>>>>>
>>>>>1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and
>>>>>
>>>>>2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
>>>>>app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
>>>>>your gmail account settings in your email client.
>>>>>
>>>>>I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email
>>>>>client to pick
>>>>>up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced
>>>>>my client
>>>>>in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.
>>>> Ok all.
>>>> This has gone way over my head:-)
>>>> 115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark on my
>>>>display
>>>> but it is collecting mail and displays my archives which was a worry.
>>>> I note the possibility of this morphing into a paid service!
>>>> Perhaps pick it up after the Summer holidays.
>>>> Thanks all for the support.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure which of your buttons are too dark, but the Phoenity
>>>Icons extension makes many of them nice and cheerfully coloured on my
>>>dark mode display, and would help even in light mode.
>> Buttons for *get messages* write, address book, etc.
>>
>
>Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
>belonging to other apps.
>
>
>https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn
>
>Would that help?

Certainly legible. I'm not over happy with mail where replies are
interspersed with colours denoting the different authors.

White on black background might be better. Anyway, I know what is up
there so just a matter of peering closely:-)
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 17/08/2023 20:58, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2023 at 18:23:35 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
>> belonging to other apps.
>>
>> https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn
>
> Hmmm, dark mode. A solution looking for a problem. Last September I was at a
> lunch in the village. I was sat next to a man who owns what used to be the
> pub, an IT employment consultant, and a retired bloke living in a cottage next
> to the church, of whom the Help Desk really would need to ask "Is the computer
> plugged in and turned on?"
>
> They'd both heard of Dark Mode, didn't use it and knew no one who did, and
> considered it to be the height of lunacy. I'm inclined to agree (except
> perhaps for LightRoom).
>

Dark Mode helps me hugely as I have early stage catracts.

I find that white text on a black background far more readable than
black text on a white background.

On 17 Aug 2023 at 22:09:09 BST, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

> On 17/08/2023 20:58, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2023 at 18:23:35 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
>>> belonging to other apps.
>>>
>>> https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn
>>
>> Hmmm, dark mode. A solution looking for a problem. Last September I was at a
>> lunch in the village. I was sat next to a man who owns what used to be the
>> pub, an IT employment consultant, and a retired bloke living in a cottage next
>> to the church, of whom the Help Desk really would need to ask "Is the computer
>> plugged in and turned on?"
>>
>> They'd both heard of Dark Mode, didn't use it and knew no one who did, and
>> considered it to be the height of lunacy. I'm inclined to agree (except
>> perhaps for LightRoom).
>
> Dark Mode helps me hugely as I have early stage catracts.
>
> I find that white text on a black background far more readable than
> black text on a white background.

When I had early stage cataracts I went to the opticians, discussed it with
the ophthalmologist, and he arranged to have each eye done by the NHS. And
they were, and so I have pin sharp vision again.

--
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf

On 17.8.23 8:48 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <kk73cnFa30nU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Henson
> <bob.henson@outlook.com> writes
>>On 17.8.23 3:42 pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>> In message <kk678jFa30lU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Henson
>>> <bob.henson@outlook.com> writes
>>>>On 17.8.23 10:13 am, Tim Lamb wrote:
>>>>> In message <kk62quFaabeU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
>>>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>>>>>On 16 Aug 2023 at 22:03:17 BST, "John Rumm" <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That just sounds like you have an account set to access a gmail account
>>>>>>> via IMAP/POP3. You can do that, but only if you have enabled permission
>>>>>>> for it in the settings in gmail, and also the email client will need to
>>>>>>> be able to handle OAuth2 authentication (which will bring up a web style
>>>>>>> login the first time you use it).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not necessarily. Last year when google announced that you would no
>>>>>>longer be
>>>>>>able just to click "allow less secure apps to login" to your gmail,
>>>>>>I assumed
>>>>>>I'd have to implement OAuth2 in my email client, and started to
>>>>>>look into it.
>>>>>>I then decided I really couldn't be arsed, and took a look at what gmail
>>>>>>actually requires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It turns out that you can carry on without OAuth2, provided that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) You set up two-factor authorisation on your gmail account and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2) You go to the Security settings of your google account and ask for an
>>>>>>app-specific password. You then set this password in the password field for
>>>>>>your gmail account settings in your email client.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I did this (it's simple enough) and so continue to use my email
>>>>>>client to pick
>>>>>>up gmail mail without having had to implement OAuth2. I've enhanced
>>>>>>my client
>>>>>>in other ways instead with minor features I actually use, much more fun.
>>>>> Ok all.
>>>>> This has gone way over my head:-)
>>>>> 115 works. The top of screen function buttons are too dark on my
>>>>>display
>>>>> but it is collecting mail and displays my archives which was a worry.
>>>>> I note the possibility of this morphing into a paid service!
>>>>> Perhaps pick it up after the Summer holidays.
>>>>> Thanks all for the support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure which of your buttons are too dark, but the Phoenity
>>>>Icons extension makes many of them nice and cheerfully coloured on my
>>>>dark mode display, and would help even in light mode.
>>> Buttons for *get messages* write, address book, etc.
>>>
>>
>>Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
>>belonging to other apps.
>>
>>
>>https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn
>>
>>Would that help?
>
> Certainly legible. I'm not over happy with mail where replies are
> interspersed with colours denoting the different authors.
>

I spent ages finding out how to do that - it was a replacement for Quote
Colours using UserContent.css. Phoenity is just the clear buttons.

--
Tetbury, Gloucestershire , UK

Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant - Tacitus

On 17.8.23 8:58 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2023 at 18:23:35 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
>> belonging to other apps.
>>
>> https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn
>
> Hmmm, dark mode. A solution looking for a problem. Last September I was at a
> lunch in the village. I was sat next to a man who owns what used to be the
> pub, an IT employment consultant, and a retired bloke living in a cottage next
> to the church, of whom the Help Desk really would need to ask "Is the computer
> plugged in and turned on?"
>
> They'd both heard of Dark Mode, didn't use it and knew no one who did, and
> considered it to be the height of lunacy. I'm inclined to agree (except
> perhaps for LightRoom).
>

I cannot comfortably see my screens without it - my cataracts object to
inbound bright light. I have absolutely everything set to dark mode,
except those few out of date websites that have not allowed for it in
their design and are unreadable. My experience is the opposite to yours
- I hardly know anyone who is /not/ using dark mode and, from what I
read, most people seem to find the same. Most noticeably all the
optometrists that I have been in use only dark screens to protect the
eyes, and recommend blue filter glasses for extensive computer use. All
those gamers with large, bright screens use dark mode. The battery life
of mobile phones and laptops increases markedly if used exclusively in
dark mode. I can't see why anyone wouldn't go for the option. But we're
all different.

--
Tetbury, Gloucestershire , UK

Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant - Tacitus

On 18.8.23 8:33 am, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2023 at 22:09:09 BST, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/08/2023 20:58, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2023 at 18:23:35 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
>>>> belonging to other apps.
>>>>
>>>> https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn
>>>
>>> Hmmm, dark mode. A solution looking for a problem. Last September I was at a
>>> lunch in the village. I was sat next to a man who owns what used to be the
>>> pub, an IT employment consultant, and a retired bloke living in a cottage next
>>> to the church, of whom the Help Desk really would need to ask "Is the computer
>>> plugged in and turned on?"
>>>
>>> They'd both heard of Dark Mode, didn't use it and knew no one who did, and
>>> considered it to be the height of lunacy. I'm inclined to agree (except
>>> perhaps for LightRoom).
>>
>> Dark Mode helps me hugely as I have early stage catracts.
>>
>> I find that white text on a black background far more readable than
>> black text on a white background.
>
> When I had early stage cataracts I went to the opticians, discussed it with
> the ophthalmologist, and he arranged to have each eye done by the NHS. And
> they were, and so I have pin sharp vision again.
>

Very wise, my other half has just had one done and the results are
remarkable. However, despite the very high success rate with the
operation there are some risks and in my case they are not yet bad
enough to operate.

--
Tetbury, Gloucestershire , UK

Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant - Tacitus

On 18/08/2023 09:08, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 18.8.23 8:33 am, Tim Streater wrote:

>> When I had early stage cataracts I went to the opticians, discussed
>> it with the ophthalmologist, and he arranged to have each eye done
>> by the NHS. And they were, and so I have pin sharp vision again.
>>
>
> Very wise, my other half has just had one done and the results are
> remarkable. However, despite the very high success rate with the
> operation there are some risks and in my case they are not yet bad
> enough to operate.
>

I think that is a sensible cost-benefit balance.

--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

On 18 Aug 2023 at 09:06:05 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:

> I cannot comfortably see my screens without it - my cataracts object to
> inbound bright light.

So get them fixed (unless there's some reason they can't be). Cataracts only
get worse. The first clue for mine was that my prescription changed markedly
over a period of abpout 18 months, when I went from slightly long-sighted, to
slightly short-sighted. On taking a closer look, the optometrist decided it
was cataracts, and after 10 minutes discussion he started the process of
getting me treatment.

IMO, there's no point in waiting. Cataracts only get worse, and by the time my
first eye was done I could see haloes around bright lights. Same applied to
bright white text on a dark background. :-)

Have you tried light mode with reduced screen brightness?

--
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Terry Pratchett

On 18 Aug 2023 at 09:08:51 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 18.8.23 8:33 am, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2023 at 22:09:09 BST, "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/08/2023 20:58, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 17 Aug 2023 at 18:23:35 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's the top of my screen with Phoenity Icons and a couple of buttons
>>>>> belonging to other apps.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://imgur.com/a/t1pE1kn
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, dark mode. A solution looking for a problem. Last September I was at a
>>>> lunch in the village. I was sat next to a man who owns what used to be the
>>>> pub, an IT employment consultant, and a retired bloke living in a cottage next
>>>> to the church, of whom the Help Desk really would need to ask "Is the computer
>>>> plugged in and turned on?"
>>>>
>>>> They'd both heard of Dark Mode, didn't use it and knew no one who did, and
>>>> considered it to be the height of lunacy. I'm inclined to agree (except
>>>> perhaps for LightRoom).
>>>
>>> Dark Mode helps me hugely as I have early stage catracts.
>>>
>>> I find that white text on a black background far more readable than
>>> black text on a white background.
>>
>> When I had early stage cataracts I went to the opticians, discussed it with
>> the ophthalmologist, and he arranged to have each eye done by the NHS. And
>> they were, and so I have pin sharp vision again.
>
> Very wise, my other half has just had one done and the results are
> remarkable. However, despite the very high success rate with the
> operation there are some risks and in my case they are not yet bad
> enough to operate.

Well - each to his own. Seems to me the risks only get worse (due to being
older) the longer one waits, and the vision gets worse, too.

--
Socialism: For people who lack the charisma to be train spotters.

Ann Sheridan