From what I've read designers for web sites tend to have very high DPI monitors with high quality colour reproduction - so on their screens it is legible - and it seems they are so bad at their craft that they assume that is enough. What about the rest of the computer users who don't have the latest technology? What about those people with vision problems? Another point that is often brought up is studies that say high contrast (think black on white) is too harsh and causes eye strain. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on that though. If it is true the answer is to adjust the contrast slightly to prevent the strain not to reduce the contrast to the absolute minimum with slightly lighter gray on slightly darker gray background. Luckily Firefox has reader view.
The theory espoused by designers is that black text on a white background can strain the eyes. Opting for a softer shade of black text, instead, makes a page more comfortable to read. Adam Schwartz, author of “The Magic of CSS,” reiterates the argument: The sharp contrast of black on white can create visual artifacts or increase eye strain. (The opposite is also true. This is fairly subjective, but still worth noting.) Let me call out the shibboleth here: Schwartz himself admits the conclusion is subjective.So why are designers resorting to lighter and lighter text? When I asked designers why gray type has become so popular, many pointed me to the Typography Handbook, a reference guide to web design. The handbook warns against too much contrast. It recommends developers build using a very dark gray (#333) instead of pitch black (#000).
Text on 'clean' is #222. It always has been. It is only slightly different than #000, but I do find it easier to read. Text on the printed page is rarely as black as #000. Of course, I know you use dark. But you should be grateful that there it is #ccc and not #fff.
I agree with you - and kleinbl00's point that it not set in stone anyway. I can't see much difference between #000/333 on #fff. #333 on #ccc is a ratio of 7.9 - which is still readable to me but anything less would start to be difficult. It's when they go even further that things start to get unreadable (again for me) and I've seen plenty of sites where the contrast is far below that. Both Apple and Google's documents are guidelines though, not rules. The quote from Apple's guidelines even says: "Strive for a minimum contrast ratio of 4.5:1" - that's way below 7.9 and the smaller text is subjectively starting to strain my eyes. That's just a short time scanning the page - the problem is compound when you have to read for longer - particularly with small text. Designer following Apple's guidelines are basically told to curb their creative genius and forced to struggle to get UP to that level of contrast - not use it as an absolute minimum.
There's a sheep mentality about all this too. Every stupid Silicon Valley startup needs to have the same faded pale-coloured website. It has to look fun too, fluffy, lightweight, like they're not doing boring old business. No-one dare step out of line. None of it is designed for actual grown-ups with their stupid sensible ideas and blurry eyes. Sometimes I hate the world of tech.