1. This site is exactly the kind of thing that I love -- clear, opinionated, and it explains the underlying theory and reasoning behind what he is advocating. While (because?) I am an absolute amateur, or less than, it helps me to have a resource like this to turn to. Even if it's completely wrong, it is at least complete! Worth the $9. ↩︎

  2. These grays trade a problem with high contrast for one of not enough contrast. What seems to be more beneficial to readers is a non-white background, or a dimmer white, which I have experimented with on this site. The font is still a dark, DARK, purple ($default-color: hsl(266, 1%, 29%);), and the background barely indistguishable from white. But! I think that the soft purple and black makes the barely not-white seem less harsh. ↩︎

  3. To quote from the article: 'To translate contrast, it uses a numerical model. If the text and background of a website are the same color, the ratio is 1:1. For black text on white background (or vice versa), the ratio is 21:1. The Initiative set 4.5:1 as the minimum ratio for clear type, while recommending a contrast of at least 7:1, to aid readers with impaired vision. The recommendation was designed as a suggested minimum contrast to designate the boundaries of legibility. Still, designers tend to treat it as as a starting point.' This is in contrast (sorry) to Butterick's approach: he says the only way to really design anything is to use your eyes and make tiny adjustments until something looks right. He may be wrong, but it makes sense to me. ↩︎