Feature Request - Change fonts used

[AdmFubar]

Just watched the latest Security Now, where you stated that you are still tweaking and updating DNS Benchmark.
My aging eyes are having a bit of an issue with the DNS list. The fonts used have a rather lite stroke, and lower contrast color. Is there any way to adjust these two issues and if not, can you add an option to adjust them?
Using wine to run this and not sure if that might be an issue with the fonts displayed.

Many thanks for this fine utility.

 

[peterblaise]

Remember to turn on ClearType, and adjust ClearType, as well as set or
own preferences for screen brightness and contrast.

- - - - -

And yet, I routinely change the gamma in IrfanView when sharing
screen grabs so I and other folks can see better:

ValiDrive has a monochrome option, I guess that's an idea that
DNSBench could offer.

DNSBench uses color to communicate a lot of information, but I use
yellow UV filtering eyeglass lenses, so ... what of it am I seeing?

What does a screen reader tell us about DNSBench presentations?

ADA compliance invites more users who have vision compromises.

ADA suggests:

• high color contrast, at least 4.5:1 for color pairs, foreground and background,
• provide text alternatives (alt text) for images,
• enable text resizing up to 200%,
• use semantic HTML/ARIA labels for screen readers,
• and offer keyboard-only navigation

Those are excellent and inclusive targets.

https://www.levelaccess.com/color-contrast-checker-new/ shows the
resulting contrast between foreground text and background, where
138 green on white is 4.53:1 contrast, for example:

IrfanView and Photoshop show the green on my ClearType screen
in the DNSBench image I shared above is:

Index: 44; color: RGB R129, G210, B129, HTML #81d281​

Green 210 on white is 2.06:1 contrast, not dark enough for the
recommended minimum contrast.

So we adjust our screens for now!

 

[Steve]

@peterblaise: Posting your screen samples in what appears to be JPG format with significant compression makes no sense. You need to use a lossless format such as PNG if you are going to show something like comparative screen font quality. As it is, whatever it was you may have been attempting to share is lost.

 

[peterblaise]

Actually, the image I shared was screen-grabbed as a lossless BMP,
reduced color count to 128 to simplify, and pasted directly to the
GRC Forum 1:1 without saving as anything, especially not to JPG.

The Forum software automatically shrunk the image to a 640-pixel-wide
17,261 color PNG - yeah, 'inventing' 17,133 'colors' not from the original
image as pasted into the Forum, and the Forum software shrunk and
compressed the image, and added colors ( ! ) for presentation here.

My computer display has ClearType on, so a screen grab contains
subpixel rendering regardless of a programmer's 'clean' intentions,
hence my dropping shared images to 256 or fewer colors, often 16
colors are enough for images of program text - here's a 16-color
reduction of the DNSBench program screen:

That feels like an accurate representation to me, and does not look any
different in Irfanciew or in the Forum post compared to the DNSBench
program window itself on my screen.

ClearType subpixel rendering presented 2,326 colors in the screen grab
( not the forum's invention of 17,261 colors during resizing! ), but above,
that's 16 colors, and the low-contrast green text is what the opening
poster observed as:

"... aging eyes are having a bit of an issue with the DNS list. ​

The fonts used have a rather lite stroke, and lower contrast color ..."​

- - - - -

But, hey, you know your code, and the image shows green text on
white as low contrast on the left of my original sample image, versus
higher contrast on the right after I reduced the gamma to .3:

green verus green​

I forced higher contrast just by playing with IrfanView's gamma control.

- - - - -

The web link to standards-analysis can help designers make sure their
text contrast is high enough to meet expected readability standards:
https://www.levelaccess.com/color-contrast-checker-new/

Here, I'll isolate and double the size, and reduce this to 16 colors:

But if you review the DNSBench program's color codes for
text-versus-background colors, and enter them into the web link,
then you'll see if you fall within known readability standards:
https://www.levelaccess.com/color-contrast-checker-new/

You know what you put in the DNSBench program's code.

We can only read and sample what lands on our screens.

My screen sample of the low-contrast green text was:

Index: 44; color: RGB R129 G210 B129, HTML #81d281​

​

Contrast Ratio is 1.83:1​

Compliance Level: Not conformant to Section 508 (revised) and not conformant at WCAG level AA. Note: there are not any contrast requirements in WCAG 2 - Level A. Thus, content may meet these requirements independent of the color palette used.​

My screen sample of the higher-contrast gamma .3 green text was:

Index: 8; color: RGB R049 G135 B054, HTML #318b36​

​

Contrast Ratio is 4.52:1​

Compliance Level: Section 508 (revised 2017) and WCAG 2 - Level AA Conformant​

ADA suggests a high color contrast of at least 4.5:1 for color pairs,
foreground and background,

Increasing text contrast to the background enhances usability, and
the web-link analysis can help achieve that inclusive accessibility goal:
https://www.levelaccess.com/color-contrast-checker-new/

- - - - -

And don't forget the rest:

ADA suggests:

• high color contrast, at least 4.5:1 for color pairs, foreground and background,
• provide text alternatives (alt text) for images,
• enable text resizing up to 200%,
• use semantic HTML/ARIA labels for screen readers,
• and offer keyboard-only navigation

Those are excellent and inclusive targets.

Thanks.