[For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]

Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
(animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
(will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
it's here:

http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml

Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
--

Fake news kills!

========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 at 21:26:36, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>[For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
>
>Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
>enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
>way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
>(animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
>(will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
>release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
>it's here:
>
>http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
>
>Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the
law." - Winston Churchill.

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:8qsapg1mutu0veu0t1u3fvuq066or69nds@4ax.com...
> [For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
>
> Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
> enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
> way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
> (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
> (will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
> release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
> it's here:
>
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
>
> Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.

That is a fantastic collection of photos and papers. The oldest things I've
got are a few photos on dog-eared thick card and a photo of my great x n
grandmother as a young woman, on glass or maybe on metal protected by glass
(could it be a Daguerrotype?). But no papers going further back than that.
When I was about 10, back in the mid 70s, my dad got my grandpa and his
mother (my great-grandma) together and recorded a conversation of their
reminiscences about "who was Henry Walmsley?", "who owned the sweet works
that burned down - several times?" and my grandpa's memories of witnessing a
tram crash right in front of him when it lost control on a steep hill, came
off the rails and ran uncontrolled across the market place into a bank. And
his memories of scare-stories from his dad who was a foreman in an iron
foundry, of people being injured or killed in accidents in the foundry. And
then memories of helping the limelight operator at the local theatre with
some of the very elaborate lighting effects: as with any new technology
(think of word processors and the initial gratuitous plethora of fonts in a
document!) there was a tendency in the 1910s/20s for directors to over-use
the technology and to demand lots of lighting changes to highlight specific
objects as they were mentioned in the dialogue ("there's my cigarette case
on the mantelpiece", so the limelight operator had to have a pencil beam
aimed at the case, ready to reveal it on cue).

Nothing as far back as you go, and nothing as grand and opulent as yours,
but still a wonderful record of their voices (their intonation, their
accents, their phraseology) and of their accounts of life in the early 20th
century. That 2-hour tape has been copied to numerous WAV files which are
backed up all over the place, along with my own transcription of it to Word
file.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 22:29:47 -0000, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8qsapg1mutu0veu0t1u3fvuq066or69nds@4ax.com...
> > [For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
> >
> > Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
> > enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
> > way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
> > (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
> > (will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
> > release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
> > it's here:
> >
> > http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
> >
> > Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
>
> That is a fantastic collection of photos and papers. The oldest things I've
> got are a few photos on dog-eared thick card and a photo of my great x n
> grandmother as a young woman, on glass or maybe on metal protected by glass
> (could it be a Daguerrotype?). But no papers going further back than that.
> When I was about 10, back in the mid 70s, my dad got my grandpa and his
> mother (my great-grandma) together and recorded a conversation of their
> reminiscences about "who was Henry Walmsley?", "who owned the sweet works
> that burned down - several times?" and my grandpa's memories of witnessing a
> tram crash right in front of him when it lost control on a steep hill, came
> off the rails and ran uncontrolled across the market place into a bank. And
> his memories of scare-stories from his dad who was a foreman in an iron
> foundry, of people being injured or killed in accidents in the foundry. And
> then memories of helping the limelight operator at the local theatre with
> some of the very elaborate lighting effects: as with any new technology
> (think of word processors and the initial gratuitous plethora of fonts in a
> document!) there was a tendency in the 1910s/20s for directors to over-use
> the technology and to demand lots of lighting changes to highlight specific
> objects as they were mentioned in the dialogue ("there's my cigarette case
> on the mantelpiece", so the limelight operator had to have a pencil beam
> aimed at the case, ready to reveal it on cue).
>
> Nothing as far back as you go, and nothing as grand and opulent as yours,
> but still a wonderful record of their voices (their intonation, their
> accents, their phraseology) and of their accounts of life in the early 20th
> century. That 2-hour tape has been copied to numerous WAV files which are
> backed up all over the place, along with my own transcription of it to Word
> file.

Thanks, but I don't think you should be too impressed by 'grand and
opulent'! Everyone has their story of their times, and we are lucky
today that digitisation means that we can save so much of it and make
it freely accessible to all.

IMV, one of the most interesting recent series on TV has been David
Olusoga's "A House Through Time":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9

He is a good presenter, and I like the fact that he tries to tell the
story of poor people as well as wealthier people.
--

Fake news kills!

========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 17/11/2021 22:55, Java Jive wrote:

> IMV, one of the most interesting recent series on TV has been David
> Olusoga's "A House Through Time":
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l64y9
>
> He is a good presenter, and I like the fact that he tries to tell the
> story of poor people as well as wealthier people.

Yes, it's an excellent series of programmes. I enjoyed the Leeds one
particularly because that's the city where I was born and lived until I
was about 10, and the house was only a couple of streets away from the
school that my mum went to. It's remarkable the amount of information
that the researchers have managed to unearth about each of the families
who lived in the houses.

With programmes like A House Through Time and Who Do You Think You Are,
I've always wondered how many houses/families *looked* promising
initially but turned out after closer research to have very little
information available... or else a wealth of information that was just
too prosaic. :-(

I wonder what history might be unearthed about our house, which has
parts dating back to at least 1890 (it's on an 1890 25" map but not on
an 1850 6" map, and the NLS doesn't have any maps dated in between).
When we bought the house a couple of years ago, I tried to work out a
time-line of owners from the huge bundle of papers we were given as the
deeds, but that probably lists owners rather than tenants - and I'm sure
many of the owners that I've identified never lived here themselves.
We're lucky that the woman who lives next door used to own our house,
until she and her husband sold it to the people who we bought it from
about 30 years ago, at which time they built a new house in what had
been the grounds of our house. So she's fascinated to see how the house
has changed and gradually been extended.

It's the stories of people's attitudes and how they cope with adversity
that really capture my imagination: my great-grandma recounts how her
tyrannical grandpa wouldn't let his wife wear a new dress that she'd
bought on hire-purchase... until the last instalment had been paid! My
grandpa told the story of his father having to leave the area where he'd
grown up to look for work in the (English) Midlands, and he'd been there
for a few months when he arrived at work one morning to be met by
someone he'd never seen before - "I'm t'new gaffer now. You worked for
my predecessor? Right, you can pack up and bugger off! I'm not having
anyone that he took on working here." And so he and his mate had to walk
the hundred-odd miles back home because they had no money for food or
for a train - it took them about a fortnight, literally singing for
their supper in pubs or sleeping in hedge-bottoms. Life was hard!

On 17/11/2021 21:26, Java Jive wrote:
> [For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
>
> Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
> enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
> way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
> (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
> (will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
> release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
> it's here:
>
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
>
> Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.

I sometimes wonder if I am unique in not having the slightest interest
in my ancestry, or anyone else's. I can find "Heir hunters" of interest
in the same way I find many detective programmes - factual or fictional
- of interest, but "Who do you think you are?" isn't for me.

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman wrote:

> I sometimes wonder if I am unique in not having the slightest interest in my
> ancestry

Never been much interest to me, I have inherited boxes of B&W photos of people I
mostly never knew ...

Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/11/2021 21:26, Java Jive wrote:
> > [For obvious reasons, this is a deliberate cross-post.]
> >
> > Many people in these ngs over the last year or two have been kind
> > enough to help me with useful advice as I have struggled to scan my
> > way through a trunkful of family documents going back to a parchment
> > (animal skin) from the reign of Queen Anne. While not yet complete
> > (will it ever be?), a major milestone has been reached today with the
> > release of an archive to the general public. For those interested,
> > it's here:
> >
> > http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
> >
> > Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.
>
> I sometimes wonder if I am unique in not having the slightest interest
> in my ancestry, or anyone else's. I can find "Heir hunters" of interest
> in the same way I find many detective programmes - factual or fictional
> - of interest, but "Who do you think you are?" isn't for me.
>
No, you're not unique, I too really don't find researching my
ancestors at all interesting.

--
Chris Green
·

In article <sn3vqu$9hs$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/FamilyHistory/FamilyHistory.shtml
> >
> > Thanks again to all who have contributed their advice.

Thanks. Interesting. :-)

That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
link to my own

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html

which uses a simpler layout and colours that I find much easier. And may
also interest some here given the xposting. Apologies to anyone who
objects to xposting so many groups. Not something I'd usually do.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 18/11/2021 09:43, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> I sometimes wonder if I am unique in not having the slightest interest
>> in my ancestry
>
> Never been much interest to me, I have inherited boxes of B&W photos of
> people I mostly never knew ...

Some of the background though is also events and places, not only faces.

I do like looking back at how that amazing building (vanished) and
became... erm... that carbuncle...

Besides, if ye have a particularly wonderful picture in ya collection
you can publicise it then sell it profitably as an NFT.

--
Adrian C

"Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote in message
news:7vjh6i-u2041.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu...
> No, you're not unique, I too really don't find researching my
> ancestors at all interesting.

I find it more interesting to learn about way of life: how people lived,
what is different about attitudes, views, behaviours, rather than to learn
that X was the son of Y and that he had five brothers and two sisters.

Hence the very strict "you will not wear that dress until *all* the
instalments on it have been paid off" attitude, and the unthinking "you
*will* drink cod liver oil with your breakfast, even if it makes you sick
straight afterwards" (so your breakfast and the cod liver oil have been of
no benefit to you whatsoever). Both of those were my very autocratic great*3
grandpa. Great grandma recounted asking him "can I have my cod liver oil
*before* breakfast, and then after I've been sick I can have my breakfast
and not be hungry all day" - and got clattered for being
cheeky/insubordinate/contrary etc etc.

And the very lax attitudes to health and safety in the iron foundry where my
great grandpa worked: accidents were accepted as part of the job - almost as
if to say "if you've not got a bad burn from molten iron, you're not working
hard enough" :-( Apparently one of his colleagues "went mad" while he was
on a raised platform around the furnace, and it was great grandpa's job as
foreman to clamber up as his mate was throwing things at him, to try to get
this chap down without him a) falling off, b) stumbling against the furnace
and burning himself. That was thought to be due to carbon monoxide
poisoning. Another time, grandpa was taking his dad's "snap" (lunch) to him
and was about to sidle past a horse and dray when the crane in the yard
toppled over and a huge casting landed on the horse a few feet from him:
that was due to the legs of the crane being weighted down with scrap/pig
iron which people had gradually been removing, until one day the support on
a leg was insufficient...

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>
> That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
> to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
> link to my own
>
> http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html

Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
the eyes.
--

Fake news kills!

========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article <7vjh6i-u2041.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
wrote:
> No, you're not unique, I too really don't find researching my ancestors
> at all interesting.

Similar for me, but with the exception of my parents and some other familiy
members I knew. Less interested in the ones who I never knew or earlier.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:43:07 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> I sometimes wonder if I am unique in not having the slightest interest in my
>> ancestry
>
>Never been much interest to me, I have inherited boxes of B&W photos of people I
>mostly never knew ...

I have a similar collection, many in the form of negatives with no
prints, but it seems sacrilege to dispose of pictures of any sort.

Rod.

On 18/11/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>>
>> That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite hard
>> to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky and post a
>> link to my own
>>
>> http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
>
> Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
> the eyes.

I had a bit of screen design training some time ago as a preliminary to
recommending a website design guide for a project.

In a nutshell, different people would have different preferences (males
and females differ on what is "the best" colours, for instance) so the
main objective would be to find widely acceptable rather than ideal.

It boiled down to knowing how long the typical person would be looking
at it and what message the design would aim to convey, and there was no
"right" answer, though there were a few "wrong" ones. A typical "wrong"
one was failing to recognise that about 8% of the population had some
degree of colour blindness and they would have difficulty with schemes
of juxtaposed Green & Black, Green & Grey, Blue & Grey, Light Green &
Yellow, Green & Blue, Blue & Purple, Green & Brown, and Green & Red.

The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people
looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention
grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.

For my project, the use by data entry clerks, I was advised to use a
light pastel rather than stark white for the background, and my later
little "what do you think of this?" sample for workmates showed a
preference for pale cyan or pale buff as I tweaked the colour codes in
the CSS.

I can accept that you prefer your own screen presentation (you chose it
so that was a given), and I note that the sans serif font on a dark
background makes it easily readable. However my personal preference
between yours and Jim's in Jim's.

Jim

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 13:59:44 +0000, Indy Jess John
>
> The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people
> looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
> on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
> rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
> white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention
> grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.

I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did.
--

Fake news kills!

========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article <sn5m8j$1n9$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 10:25:29 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> >>
> >> That said, I'm afraid I find your choice of BG/FG/Text colours quite
> >> hard to read. Since you posted about your 'history' I'll be cheeky
> >> and post a link to my own
> >>
> >> http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
> >
> > Sorry, can't agree there; I find yours garish, mine more restful to
> > the eyes.

> I can accept that you prefer your own screen presentation (you chose it
> so that was a given), and I note that the sans serif font on a dark
> background makes it easily readable. However my personal preference
> between yours and Jim's in Jim's.

FWIW I 'road tested' my choices when I worked on my first website (Scots
Guide to Electronics). As this was/is a University website I built I got a
number of undergrads to read it and comment. I found that there was indeed
a variety of reactions wrt layout, colours, etc. But what I settled on
seemed most generally OK for people. Some of them - like myself - have
sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.

You can never get this perfect for all cases, but settled on the 'design'
(sic) I've used since. It won't win any graphic design or whizz-wheel
awards, but seems OK in general.

BTW The 'Scots Guide' is now essentially 'frozen'. When I fully retired I
lost my Uni email address and the pages remain as were. But I've built
other sites since using the same old-fashioned approach. Assume people want
content - or not.

Alas, my eyesight is such that light - particularly sans - text on a darker
background I find very hard to read. Hence my comment. But I assume this
isn't a problem for most people. FWIW I also find screens harder to read
than printed text. YMMV. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 18/11/2021 15:15, Java Jive wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 13:59:44 +0000, Indy Jess John
>>
>> The other "wrong" one would be one that quickly tired the eyes of people
>> looking at the screen for long periods of time. For those, light text
>> on a dark background tires the eyes quite quickly because some visual
>> rest comes from light areas with no content. Having said that, a pure
>> white background is a bit bright and becomes gradually more attention
>> grabbing than the text on top of it if looked at for long periods.
>
> I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
> the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did.

Me too. That is why for my own stuff I use a pastel buff.

Jim

In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vupm7r76kprtp57vnhpf@4ax.com>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
> eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --

I also find what becomes 'black on white' difficult *on screens* because
the active light background is very different to scatter reflection from a
printed page. Causes 'glare'. Simply having a light grey background can
help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.

But some tint in the background can give the eye a further distinction
without glare. Difficult to say more as it varies from person to person and
with rendering setup.

The big recent change, of course, is the use of 'mobile' devices with a
relatively tiny screen. Different environment to using a desktop machine.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vupm7r76kprtp57vnhpf@4ax.com>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
> > eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --

Perhaps I could have added there that this problem used to be much
more marked with CRT screens. I just couldn't look at pages with
white or light backgrounds for more than around half-an-hour at a
time. I don't find the problem nearly so bad with LCDs, but it's
still more tiring for me than light on dark.

As you say, each person tends to differ, and I think a lot of it comes
down with what you're used to. There's a hell of a lot of
pseudo-science out there about this sort of thing, some of which has
been debunked in this ng in the past.

I suppose one way to think about it is: "What, as far as our eyes are
concerned, is most natural? Clearly it's not black on white or any
other bright colour! The only time we have this situation in nature
is when we look too close to the sun, or perhaps even just up at the
sky on a hot bright day. The former is acknowledged to be bad for
ones eyes, while it can also be quite uncomfortable looking into a
bright blue sky, and if you see a bird of prey circling on such a day,
usually you can't make out any or much colouration on the underside of
its wings, because the dazzle of the sky turns it into just a
silhouette.

But from this viewpoint, light on dark is not exactly natural either,
while if you use midtones for both ink and paper, then potentially you
can run into the colour-blindness problems already mentioned. So I
stick with light on dark as being the least bad.

> Simply having a light grey background can
> help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.

Again, my experience is exactly the opposite, I find serif fonts bitty
and confusing to the eye.
--

Fake news kills!

========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 19:12:34, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
><noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vupm7r76kprtp57vnhpf@4ax.com>, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to the
>> > eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --
>
>Perhaps I could have added there that this problem used to be much
>more marked with CRT screens. I just couldn't look at pages with
>white or light backgrounds for more than around half-an-hour at a
>time. I don't find the problem nearly so bad with LCDs, but it's
>still more tiring for me than light on dark.

A big difference is between frame rate and flicker rate, though it's
less so with static material such as text. It used to be thought that
refresh rate had to be at least not much less than 50, as otherwise the
flicker was indeed noticeable (and in many cases headache-inducing):
that's why (both) TV systems used interlace (OK, there were bandwidth
reasons too; it was quite a clever invention), and most film projectors
had a shutter that interrupted the light _twice_ a frame.

But once the light source was constant, i. e. flicker ceased to be a
real problem, frame rates could fall without headaches: even for moving
subjects (except fast-moving, such as games or sports and some action
films), they could (and still can) be a _lot_ lower than used to be
thought necessary.
>
>As you say, each person tends to differ, and I think a lot of it comes

(Indeed. In the pre-PC days, we had some computers that could do screen
at either 50 or 60 hertz; I couldn't see much difference, but had
several colleagues who definitely could [and preferred the 60].)
[]
>But from this viewpoint, light on dark is not exactly natural either,
>while if you use midtones for both ink and paper, then potentially you
>can run into the colour-blindness problems already mentioned. So I
>stick with light on dark as being the least bad.

It seems odd that, pre-windows (roughly), light on dark was the norm,
though not necessarily for technical reasons (one of the cheapest sets
of home computers - the Sinclair[UK]/Timex[US] ZX80, ZX81, and Spectrum
- used black on white).

>
>> Simply having a light grey background can
>> help a lot. As does serif rather than sans.
>
>Again, my experience is exactly the opposite, I find serif fonts bitty
>and confusing to the eye.

I reluctantly admit I find sans easier, though intellectually I dislike
them, because there are more characters that can be confused (I, l, and
sometimes 1, for example) in sans. I think they (sans) look "kiddy" -
but that's probably why they were originally used for kids, i. e. that
they're easier.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Douglas Adams is always right; any technology invented after you're 35 does
indeed feel against the natural order of things. - Simon Mayo, RT
2020/7/28-/8/3

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
>allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
>had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
>reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.
[]
No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
them.

Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
even know how to.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Douglas Adams is always right; any technology invented after you're 35 does
indeed feel against the natural order of things. - Simon Mayo, RT
2020/7/28-/8/3

On 18/11/2021 19:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf<noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>> sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
>> allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
>> had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
>> reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.
> []
> No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
> and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
> designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
> them.
>
> Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
> intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
> initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
> default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
> even know how to.)

HTML reflows within the width it has either been given explicitly or it
has derived from the inheritance of earlier properties.

If the width is explicitly stated as being wider than the reader's
screen then it believes what it is told and the reader will have to
scroll to read it. If the width is expressed as a percentage (not
exceeding 100%), then the presentation uses that percentage of the width
of the viewing screen (or table column or predefined area), and
scrolling is never necessary.

I do write HTML code, though I agree that most don't.

Jim

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 19:42:31 +0000
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:14:20, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
>wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>[]
>>sight problems and/or a form of 'Liz Dexia'. FWIW I also ensured text was
>>allowed to 'flow to fit the window' for most body text because not everyone
>>had a big screen. I also kept the text and markup simple to aid screen
>>reading software. And the use of older machines and browsers.
>[]
>No, no, you can't do that: text _must_ be designed for one width only,
>and usually a ridiculously big one, so that anyone other than the
>designers with their huge monitors has to scroll left and right to read
>them.
>
>Seriously, I never understood this: HTML itself reflows text
>intrinsically, so the move to fixed-width - or fixed-format - must
>initially have required _extra_ programming. (Now, it's probably the
>default in web-generating software; I doubt many write HTML code, or
>even know how to.)

I do!
Oh, and in the Yoshimi user guide I flow text :)

--
Basic

In article <ug8dpgdac843qmgqhcjqtoge08kmnsc26r@4ax.com>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:38:00 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > In article <t7rcpg5aa7ifp7vupm7r76kprtp57vnhpf@4ax.com>, Java Jive
> > <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > I find the bright backgrounds on most websites garish and tiring to
> > > the eyes, that's why I chose the light on dark design that I did. --

> I suppose one way to think about it is: "What, as far as our eyes are
> concerned, is most natural? Clearly it's not black on white or any
> other bright colour! The only time we have this situation in nature is
> when we look too close to the sun, or perhaps even just up at the sky on
> a hot bright day.

Agreed. However I'd make two points.

1) That for many years the bulk of 'reading' in many cultures has been dark
black/brown ink on 'whitish' paper/parchment/etc

2) That 'in the wild' much of what we see comes from a scene with blue-white
sky illumination. Not really 'white'.

The difference wrt a screen is that diffuse reflection is 'natural' but
screens tend to be the light source. So can be harder to set such as to not
'glare'.

FWIW Perhaps my longest-term best friend was for many years a superb
graphic designer and photographer so we had many conversations about these
topics. Quite, erm, illuminating for us both given my interest in the
physics related to it.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html