On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 09:47:37PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > > Colors nowadays are industry standard and increase readability.
Your unqualified statement is objectively false. How do you know that the user's terminal isn't using the same color -- or all too close to it -- for background as you've chosen to use as syntax highlighting for directories? Oops! I guess I didn't need to read any directory names at all. I am *not* opposed to highlighting when ls (or vi, or...) is outputting to a terminal. I *am* opposed to the use of hardwired colors as "highlights". That practice is discriminatory against the color-blind and also punishes those who (horrors) have chosen some background color for their terminals from personal preference. Among the worst offenders in this regard is vim, where on a properly color-calibrated monitor with the terminal emulator set to a true black background, dark blue is used for syntax highlighting, a blue so dark it's basically unreadable. Use abstract properties for highlighting syntax all you like -- bold, reverse video, italic, underline, heck, make the text blink if you have to. Modern terminals let users map those to colors if they choose anyway. But please, don't pick some colors that look nice on *your* terminal and inflict them on everyone else. Thanks. Thor
