I'm all for giving people the option. Assuming everyone is able is a crux of UI/UX design.
Something that the article doesn’t seem to pick up on is how we read and dark modes effect on that depends on what we’re reading. (The musician example doesn’t quite do it justice).
AKAIK We see the shapes of words first, then some of the letters, then we understand the word. Hence why if y-u blank -ut s-me /etters, y-u can sti// read a sentence.
I find light on dark easier to navigate with code because the “shapes” are easier to determine.
Code is highly structured - even different variable names have different shapes.
Having said that...
Reading a full on research paper or something has to be dark on light for me. I’m reading something with less structure, where the words are one after the other.
So... yeah. It’s context and task dependent. So it’s a good thing there’s a choice.
Optional settings are the beauty of software, they shouldn't be shunned but encouraged.
I'm not arguing against options but I am saying options come with a cost so the benefit has to be deemed to be worth the maintenance burden.
This has been exacerbated by my recent "graduation" to progressive glasses. For whatever reason these seem to cause their own chromatic abberation issues.
Dark mode actually makes the fringing a bigger problem, but I configure everything not to use blues significantly and so it overall makes things more readable for me.
Still, I agree that having both a light and a dark mode is better than having just one of them.