Réglez-vous la luminosité de vos écrans? [fr]

[en] Archive of my weekly French-language "technology advice column".

Ma newsletter hebdomadaire “Demande à Steph” est archivée ici pour la postérité. Chaque semaine, un tuyau ou une explication touchant à la technologie numérique, ou une réponse à vos questions! Inscrivez-vous pour recevoir directement la prochaine édition. Voici l’archive originale.

Il vaut la peine de garder un oeil sur la luminosité de ses écrans.

L’écran est un bouffeur de batterie

C’est surtout utile à savoir pour les tablettes et smartphones. Sur luminosité maximale, vous drainez votre batterie bien plus rapidement qu’à une luminosité plus faible (clairement, il vaut encore mieux avoir un écran éteint ;-)).

Attention aux yeux!

Idéalement, pour ménager ses yeux, la luminosité de l’écran qu’on regarde devrait être comparable à celle de notre environnement. On va donc augmenter la luminosité en plein jour, et la réduire le soir. Votre écran ne devrait pas être un grand phare lumineux dans une pièce sombre ou une rue de nuit. Vos yeux vous remercieront (et votre tête aussi, si l’écran a tendance à avoir sur vous cet effet désagréable).

Mieux dormir…

La lumière de nos écrans est très blanche/bleue. Elle correspond au soleil du milieu de la journée. Outre le type d’activité que l’on a tendance à avoir sur écran, et qui stimule notre cerveau, s’exposer à de la lumière “de jour” le soir n’est pas une super idée. Le mieux est encore de bannir les écrans le soir, mais soyons réalistes, on est en 2016 et on est tous un peu accros à Facebook ou Whatsapp.

Du coup, pensez déjà à installer flux sur vos ordinateurs et tablettes: c’est une application qui jaunit la lumière de vos écrans une fois la nuit tombée et qui atténue donc un peu l’effet “je suis en plein soleil et donc il fait jour, pas question de dormir” de leur lumière bleue. Et veillez bien également à en diminuer la luminosité!

Je vous souhaite de douces nuits bien reposantes…

Similar Posts:

Thoughts on Dystopian Tech Future Vision [en]

These last weeks I’ve been catching up with On The Media (partly thanks to being back in the saddle), and earlier this evening I was listening to the February 18 piece on “Our Future With Technology”.

I had a few thoughts as I was listening that I’d like to share with you.

First of all, I quite strongly believe in the position defended by Brooke at some point which says that technology mainly allows us to become more of what we are. This is along the line of what I try to explain about “dangers” of the internet regarding teenagers: most of the trouble they face online is the same kind of trouble they face offline. Yes, sometimes with a twist, and other consequences. But in a very general way, the internet is not a completely alien place — as our local online world sociologist Olivier Glassey said a few months back during a talk I attended, we need to stop thinking of the “online” as a “separate space” (the expression he used is “le lieu de l’altérité”).

A bit later in the show, they are talking about augmented reality: what will it be like when we can wear glasses or contact lenses which, along with facial recognition software, will allow us to identify the people we come upon in the streets? OMG-there-will-be-no-privacy-anymore the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it <insert more dystopian panic here>.

I’m always surprised that this kind of thought experiment never includes things like “well, some people might end up covering their faces” or “we’ll start wearing masks” or “there will be a way to opt out of being ‘facially recognized'” or… whatever coping mechanism one can imagine. Because as technology advances and disrupts the way we are used to living, we also evolve coping or evading mechanisms to resist change. Why does run-of-the-mill dystopian thinking always depict us as passive victims of the unstoppable advance of technology?

We’re not passive. We usually actively resist change. For example, we now carry on our phones everywhere we go, but we choose to mute them or screen our calls — something that was pretty unthinkable 30 years ago when all we knew was landlines.

With the dystopian glasses on (the show was constructed as an attempted dialogue between utopian and dystopian visions of our tech future) the idea was brought up that augmented reality might at some point allow us to ignore or obliterate what we disagree with — extreme example: not seeing people with radically opposed views to ours. Bob concluded “people obliterate people”, which in my sense is right: we are already obliterating what we don’t want to see. Technology might allow us to do it better (“becoming more of what we are”) but sticking to what is familiar and ignoring the rest is fundamentally human. If I wasn’t so tired right now I’d fish out this article I read (no memory where) which shows how we very selectively remember what already fits in our worldview and obliterate the rest.

I see the “people obliterating people” thing at play in India. In the same spaces (I’m talking of streets or neighbourhoods here), you have completely parallel and distinct societies that live on with very little knowledge or understanding of each other. Literally invisible to each other.

Similar Posts: