Dark mode is here for Wikipedia (finally!). Dark mode has been one of the most requested features. It improves accessibility and reduces eye strain for readers and communities across Wikimedia proj…
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
Dark Reader Plugin already solved that issue.
Native dark modes are better and have much less of a performance impact. It’s good as a stop gap though.
Agreed. Well, I don’t know if it’d deal with random images as well, as users can upload those.
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.
Also just donated
Dark reader team be like “Guys! We’re eating pizza tonight!”
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.
Dark reader is one of the heaviest extensions you use, lots of dom modifications. It also passes around far too much data between processes.
That’s good to know. These modifications are needed to replace the style sheet details, I guess?
What does this mean? Do you have a link where I could read up on the details? Thanks.
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.
“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.
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
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.
Chrome flag works on some websites, but makes others completely unreadable. Do not recommend unless you can’t use dark reader
Yeah, Dark Reader is a godsend. I just got tired of all the light mode webpages and took matters into my own hands.
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.
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.
You can change the color.
Been a while since I’ve tested that extension out, does it have stylesheet, css, or invert modes so different pages can be shown differently?
Yes.
Is ot jyst me or does dark reader do formulas wrong on wikepedia for u as well?
Which Page?