@rwvlasblom Nobody would say that a screen is a replacement for actual daylight, and this is not what we would claim either. But a screen used in the morning can have an effect on circadian timing. And mainly, the choices about how much daylight you let into your workspace during the day will have a big effect too. In this case, more light during the day is better, and brighter screens allow us to open the windows and enjoy the sunshine. People working in dark rooms are not helping themselves.
The rhetorical argument used by Kruse/Wunsch (distinct from the basic science) is incorrect because they talk about colors without considering intensity. This is not good science.
The effects that may happen in very extreme light levels (brighter than daylight) are not the same as the ones from domestic sources and screens. We're talking about differences of 100-1000x in intensity, and often more.
When you talk about any radiative hazard, you have to say what range of intensity is involved, and in this case, it's pretty clear that (because they're way too dim) screens do not cause harm in the first place that can be balanced with red light. And similarly, the spectra we're talking about are fundamentally similar to daylight.
I think everyone's missing that a blue sky is 20,000-50,000K - it's very blue. Only civil twilight gives us a "purple" spectrum (with red+blue), and this is again at lower intensity levels.
I wish these authors would do the work to explain their claims by bringing actual power units (how many photons per unit area, and which wavelengths) and relate them to existing studies, even if they're rodent models. The work I've done in measuring and modeling these effects says there isn't any risk here, and these claims are way off-base.
However, shutting yourself off from the sunlight all the day has a real risk, and we work hard to explain how this all works.
Thank you for the reply and the information you bring with it. I will read about this to find out of this is true.
@TwoCables A choice of wording is correct precisely if it communicates the meaning that you intended to communicate to your intended audience. This absolutely does not do that (as you can tell by this thread existing), and as such the choice of wording is simply wrong: grammar doesn't enter into it. Good communication and UX design does.
herf last edited by
@bluesam3 Also, we have been designing f.lux as a tool you can use to control your body, and most people only expect it to control a screen.
Right now we are kind of living in the awkward moment between the two, and probably we will find better ways to make the two things separate & understandable in the future.
Charlie Halpern-Hamu last edited by Charlie Halpern-Hamu
As recommended, I read this article:
As a native English speaker, I had no difficulty understanding it. It was full of references to "internal biological clock", "clocks in tissues throughout the body", "circadian clock", "circadian rhythm" and how these might be "entrained" or "synchronized" by external signals like light.
But there was no reference to the "body" being "late" or "early". I do not believe that the "body" being "late" or "early" is idiomatic English. I believe "the body's clock running late/early" or "your circadian rhythm being slowed down/sped up" is idiomatic English. Do these not communicate the desired message?
I understand that the science is advancing. And I understand that there's some reason to treat the whole "body" as a "clock", rather than to separate the concepts. But I think most everyone actually does understand that, and the accepted ways of denoting this concept are your "body's clock" and/or "circadian rhythm".
Certainly I think most people who are installing f.lux have at least a dim understanding that they are trying to get their body in sync with the sun, whatever that means exactly. And yet they are still rightly confused by the non-standard phrasing "your body is later".
Post removed, replying to old threads to criticize other users is not okay. -ADMIN
Saying, "The English can be "wrong" until the rest of the world catches up", is basically agreeing that the grammar is incorrect and that very few people will comprehend your non grammatically correct sentence. Grammatically correct sentences are made up a structure including nouns, verbs, etc. If you've decided to create your own grammar then it explains why most people won't know what you are trying to express.
Also, the body may have a circadian clock but the body consists of MANY other parts and systems that have nothing at all to do with clocks. It would be like saying, "An electrical outage is making the building later". Even if the building contains a clock that would not be a correct statement. "An electrical outage is making the clock in the building run late". would be correct.
"Your body is made of clocks" is just not true. It may have rhythms but they are part of many other systems. Is my hair a clock? Is my tongue a clock? Etc.