There's also quite a difference between the orange on this site (a harsh electric orange) and the relatively mild and somewhat popular shade of orange on the article, so I think it's a wash.
I don't think that there's that much of a difference - The site starts out the same colour as the header, in fact, and fades gradually. The majority of the piece, however, is on quite bright orange.
I suppose the main argument was: “So what? Orange is not hard to read on. It sounds like you're complaining because you like to complain about different things.”
Appropriate contrast was maintained, the entire design was not overly luminescent. Since it was the background color it did not create a wicked eye-draw the way the banner at the top of our comment pages here do.
If you don't like unusual designs then you shouldn't read peepcode; a magazine format is one of their boasted mission statements.
I know people with severe visual disabilities. They have readers or tools to help them read things with far less objectionable layouts and designs than this one.
Saying every site has to avoid all interesting design so that people who are legally blind can—through supreme effort—read your page unassisted seems to be unreasonable at best and disingenuous at worst. Readability and screen readers and accessibility helpers and style removers exist for a reason and people who need them use them.
Huh. Have you actually managed to respond to any differing viewpoint here without wildly misrepresenting that person's remarks in a way that starts at disingenuous?
Dialog dies with good faith; when you try to recast what other people have said in order to argue with yourself, it's clear that you're not communicating in good faith.
When you lash out against anyone calling you on it, that's only confirmed.
