zlacker

>>4dm1r4+(OP)
True. Use dark mode or don’t, but stop going on about it.

>>badger+F3
You often don't have a choice. Not without being forced to tinker around with your browser in ways that aren't readily accessible to many/most users.

What us dark-mode haters are really asking for is a simple option to click.

>>Camper+T3
I've never seen a browser force dark mode on you as they all seem to default to light mode. Same with the OS.

It's also easily configured in Firefox.

>>lawn+X7
I think that's the point of misunderstanding. At the risk of sounding like an LLM, this isn't about a "mode," it's about the infuriating choice made by web designers who hardwire their pages to dark themes.

So, no, it is not "easily configured in Firefox" or anything else running on the client side. When I visit various sites and have to squint at the text, that's 100% on the site designers. It may be fixable by various third-party extension hacks and kludges with numerous drawbacks of their own, but reskinning the site itself isn't something the browser can (or should) be expected to do.

Ideally, sites where the admins prefer light-on-dark text should follow Wikipedia's example, which really sets the standard IMHO, and give users a choice -- auto, dark, or light mode. Here again, 'mode' refers to an option provided by the site, with nothing whatsoever to do with client-side chrome. They are basically just giving you the option of using different curated style sheets, which is great.

>>Camper+Jw
It's hard to symphatize with the "dark mode hater" when it's only the very minority of websites that enforce dark mode without respecting user choice, as most websites enforce light mode without respecting user choice (including HN).