I find it hard to take advice from anyone who makes such strong claims, in such a provocative manner, whilst failing so utterly in their own demonstration: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imagebin.ca&#x2F;v&#x2F;2eeSxQABPMX9" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imagebin.ca&#x2F;v&#x2F;2eeSxQABPMX9</a><p>Apparently that&#x27;s &quot;legible&quot; and &quot;looks the same in all... browsers&quot;.<p>I certainly agree that BMFW has less contrast than the MFW; so little that it&#x27;s difficult to read!<p>For comparison, here&#x27;s how MFW looks: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imagebin.ca&#x2F;v&#x2F;2eeVa5QksF6e" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imagebin.ca&#x2F;v&#x2F;2eeVa5QksF6e</a><p>White text on a black background, exactly as I asked for when I configured Firefox. Content taking up my whole widescreen monitor, exactly as I asked for when I made the Firefox window that size.<p>The only thing BMFW seems to have correct is using sans-serif font; which I expect is because I unticked Firefox&#x27;s &quot;allow pages to override these fonts&quot; option. Other than that, it looks like a me-too cargo-cult of MFW which completely misses the point.<p>Presumably the creators of BMFW are using, and only ever test anything with, a black-on-white style which is, let me guess, the browser&#x27;s default? What would that make them, in their own (jokingly &quot;quoted&quot;) words?