You know way more about this than I do. And if I'm the only one who finds wikipedia's links easier to read, then obviously my views should be ignored. How about the line spacing? Rene Rivera wrote:
Yes. I think you mean "more contrast". There are other ways to improve contrast without changing the luminance. It's a problem with visual perception that's hard to deal with, and with much research behind it. As an example here's a quick color study comparison of the wiki link color and my current link color...
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/color.htm
The wiki color is on the left, mine on the right. The first three rows are the pure color. The second three are the luminance of the colors only. Both have the text in white and the opposing color. This helps show differences, and more importantly similarities, in the brightness and contrast of the colors. (this is a common way of typeset comparison)
As you can see the wiki color has slightly more contrast on the white. But it has less contrast when only the luminance is considered. One common cause for this is the color bleeding that happens on monitors. For others the experience will vary, including laptop LCD users which are likely to see either no difference or significant difference between the two depending on how the LCD does a "floor" or "ceiling" on the colors.
And I hate to sound like a broken record, but I compare every attempt directly against www.wikipedia.org. The shade of blue used in wikipedia.org (or is it my browser?)
It's wikipedia... and your graphics card.. and your gamma curve.. and your monitor, LCD, plasma, or projection.
My suggestion, for you and others, is to download the above page and play with the colors yourself to see how it looks on your display. And tell everyone of your experience :-)