[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A modern-mode?
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: A modern-mode? |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:42:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:40:53PM +0200, Arthur Miller wrote:
> João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I just meant the "custom-themes"
> > infrastructure should be enough to accommodate enough of
> > the proposed "modern-mode". Not sure if it is (as I don't use it).
> No, it is not. It lacks unified framework to use as logicla names for
> color use;
Isn't "face" the better abstraction, anyway? Think blind people.
Think color-blind people (up to 8% of the male and 0.5% of the
female population of Norther European descent [1]).
Conveying semantics via color has to have some fallback, and
this meshes well with faces, I think.
Cheers
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: A modern-mode?, (continued)
- Re: A modern-mode?, Arthur Miller, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?, João Távora, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?, Arthur Miller, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?, João Távora, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?, Thibaut Verron, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?, João Távora, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?, Arthur Miller, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?,
tomas <=
- RE: A modern-mode?, arthur miller, 2020/09/16
- Re: A modern-mode?, Alan Third, 2020/09/17
- RE: A modern-mode?, arthur miller, 2020/09/17
- Re: A modern-mode?, Arthur Miller, 2020/09/16
RE: A modern-mode?, Drew Adams, 2020/09/16