Abstract

As digital systems scale globally, interface design choices increasingly carry environmental and accessibility implications. This paper examines dark-themed, low-luminance web interfaces as a case study in digital restraint, exploring their measurable effects on energy consumption, visual ergonomics, and user accessibility. Drawing on display technology research, human-computer interaction studies, and sustainability literature, it argues that dark interface design, when implemented with appropriate contrast and typographic care, can contribute to reduced energy demand and improved usability for specific user populations. Rather than positioning dark mode as a universal solution or aesthetic trend, this paper frames it as a contextual, ethical design choice aligned with principles of digital stewardship.

Introduction

Digital interfaces increasingly mediate how people work, learn, and participate in public life. As a result, design decisions that were once considered purely aesthetic now intersect with broader concerns of accessibility, sustainability, and human wellbeing. Bright, high-luminance interfaces have become a dominant default across the web, driven in part by branding trends and assumptions about readability and clarity. However, these defaults are not neutral. They shape visual comfort, cognitive load, device energy use, and long-term system sustainability.

This paper examines the intentional use of dark-themed web interfaces as an example of digital restraint: a design posture that prioritizes reduced extraction of human and environmental resources. While dark mode has gained popularity in consumer software, its implications are often discussed anecdotally or reductively. By grounding the discussion in empirical research, this paper seeks to clarify where dark interface design offers measurable benefits, where its limitations lie, and why it merits consideration as part of an accessibility, and sustainability-oriented design practice.

Display Technology and Energy Consumption

The relationship between interface colour and energy consumption is mediated primarily by display technology. On organic light-emitting diode (OLED) and active-matrix OLED (AMOLED) screens, each pixel emits its own light; darker pixels consume less power, and black pixels consume effectively none (Dong et al., 2017). In contrast, liquid crystal displays (LCDs) rely on a constant backlight, meaning energy savings from dark interfaces are more modest and dependent on overall brightness settings rather than pixel colour alone (Kurale et al., 2025).

Empirical studies demonstrate that dark user interfaces can lead to substantial power reductions on OLED devices. Google's Android research team reported energy savings of up to 63% at full brightness when using dark mode on OLED screens compared to light mode (Google Developers, 2018). Similar findings have been replicated in independent laboratory settings, confirming a direct correlation between luminance and power draw (Dong et al., 2017).

While individual savings per device are small, sustainability research consistently emphasises the cumulative impact of marginal efficiency gains when applied at scale (International Energy Agency, 2022). Given the billions of screen-hours consumed daily across mobile devices, even incremental reductions in average energy use contribute meaningfully to long-term demand reduction.

Visual Ergonomics and Accessibility

Accessibility considerations extend beyond formal compliance standards to include physical comfort and perceptual strain. High screen luminance and glare have been associated with increased visual fatigue, particularly in low-ambient-light environments (Sheedy et al., 2003). Users with photosensitivity, migraine disorders, or certain neurodivergent conditions may experience disproportionate discomfort from bright interfaces (Wilkins et al., 2010).

Dark-themed interfaces, when designed with sufficient contrast and legible typography, can reduce glare and visual stress for these populations (Benedetto et al., 2014). However, the literature also cautions against simplistic conclusions: poorly implemented dark interfaces with low contrast can impair readability, particularly for users with astigmatism or reduced visual acuity (Buchner et al., 2009).

These findings underscore an important principle: accessibility is contextual. Dark mode is not inherently more accessible for all users, but it offers demonstrable benefits for many when implemented responsibly. Providing dark themes as a well-designed default, or at minimum, as a first-class option, acknowledges the diversity of human visual needs rather than assuming a universal baseline.

Cognitive Load, Attention, and Human Sustainability

Beyond visual ergonomics, interface brightness and intensity influence cognitive load. Cognitive Load Theory suggests that unnecessary sensory stimulation competes with working memory resources, reducing comprehension and increasing fatigue (Sweller, 1988). Human-computer interaction research supports this view, showing that calmer, less visually aggressive interfaces can improve focus and task persistence, particularly for users with attention regulation challenges (Tuch et al., 2012).

From this perspective, accessibility and sustainability converge. Human attention is a finite resource, and interfaces that demand constant alertness contribute to burnout and disengagement. Designing for lower luminance and reduced visual noise aligns with emerging calls for “humane technology” that respects cognitive limits rather than exploiting them.

Longevity, Maintenance, and Environmental Impact

Environmental impact in digital systems is dominated not by day-to-day energy use alone, but by device manufacturing and replacement cycles (European Commission, 2020). Interfaces that remain usable, legible, and comfortable over time support longer device lifespans by reducing pressure for frequent upgrades driven by visual fatigue or obsolescence.

Accessible design practices such as clear typography, stable layouts, restrained colour palettes all contribute to this longevity. Dark-themed interfaces, when paired with such practices, can age more gracefully than high-contrast, trend-driven designs, reducing the need for frequent redesigns and re-engineering. Longevity, in this sense, becomes an environmental strategy.

Limitations and Ethical Considerations

It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of dark interface design. Energy savings are highly dependent on display technology and user brightness settings. Accessibility benefits vary across populations and contexts, and no single interface paradigm serves all users equally. Ethical design therefore requires flexibility: offering alternatives, respecting user choice, and avoiding one-size-fits-all prescriptions.

Dark themes should be understood not as a moral imperative, but as a considered response to specific technological, environmental, and human factors. Their value lies in intentionality, not universality.

Conclusion

Designing in the dark is not a rejection of clarity or progress, but an exploration of restraint. As digital systems increasingly shape both environmental outcomes and human experience, designers bear responsibility not only for what interfaces enable, but for what they demand.

Dark-themed interfaces, grounded in empirical evidence and implemented with care, represent one small but meaningful step toward more accessible and sustainable digital systems. They remind us that better technology does not always require more intensity, more brightness, or more consumption. Sometimes, it begins by deciding what we are willing to turn down.

References

• Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G. and Baccino, T. (2013) 'E-readers and visual fatigue', PLoS ONE, 9(12), e83676.

• Buchner, A., Mayr, S. and Brandt, M. (2009) 'The advantage of positive text-background polarity is due to high display luminance', Human Factors, 51(6), pp. 882-886.

• Dong, M., Zhong, L. and Dutta, P. (2017) 'Power consumption characteristics of OLED displays', Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(3), pp. 1-25.

• European Commission (2020) Circular Economy Action Plan. Brussels: European Commission.

• Google Developers (2018) Dark Theme: Power Efficiency on OLED Displays. Available at: https://developer.android.com (Accessed: contextual reference).

• International Energy Agency (2022) Digitalisation and Energy. Paris: IEA.

• Kurale, S., Gupta, K., Gaitonde, C., Pancholi, A. and Patil, R. (2025) The Impact of Color Schemes on Device Energy Consumption: A Study on Optimization Strategies for Energy-Efficient UI Design, International Journal of Engineering, Management and Humanities, 6(3), pp. 06-16.

• Sheedy, J.E., Hayes, J. and Engle, J. (2003) 'Is all asthenopia the same?', Optometry and Vision Science, 80(11), pp. 732-739.

• Sweller, J. (1988) 'Cognitive load during problem solving', Cognitive Science, 12(2), pp. 257-285.

• Tuch, A.N., Presslaber, E.E., StöCklin, M., Opwis, K. and Bargas-Avila, J.A. (2012) 'The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites', International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(11), pp. 794-811.

• Wilkins, A.J., Huang, J. and Cao, Y. (2010) 'Visual stress theory and its application to reading and reading tests', Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), pp. 152-162.