• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1654 months ago

    Native dark modes are better and have much less of a performance impact. It’s good as a stop gap though.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Native dark modes are better

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • @AProfessional
        link
        English
        11
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Dark reader is one of the heaviest extensions you use, lots of dom modifications. It also passes around far too much data between processes.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          lots of dom modifications

          That’s good to know. These modifications are needed to replace the style sheet details, I guess?

          passes around far too much data between processes.

          What does this mean? Do you have a link where I could read up on the details? Thanks.

          • @AProfessional
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -9
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      “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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        184 months ago

        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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

        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.

        • Æther
          link
          English
          24 months ago

          Chrome flag works on some websites, but makes others completely unreadable. Do not recommend unless you can’t use dark reader