On Paul Boag versus Gerry McGovern on the hoary old prettiness versus accessibility issue…
I think Gerry has a point about underlines (not just text-decoration but border-bottom as well): There’s a general feeling that they’re plain ugly. I don’t think it matters if you use an obvious link colour (mainly blue) if you don’t have an underline, but it’s a problem for colour–blind users if you use red or green (and yes, this site’s underlines are probably too faint). And an underline does provide a very quick indication that this text is a link.
The way text-decoration cuts off descenders is pretty low down on the list of legibility problems… Gerry’s print comparison is completely spurious.
Perhaps a clearer example of difficult backgrounds would be For a Beautiful Web, which, I think, is definitely made more difficult to read by the wallpaper (and until recently it sported an eye–shredding red background).
White and black set in Goudy Old Style
As for WOB and BOW, I personally reckon dark grey on white is the most readable combination, especially for longform texts, although light on black works well for me when I’m reading in a poorly–lit room. I’m sure there’s reams of scientific research on this subject that’s easily accessible.
Finally, it depends what you’re site’s trying to do. One of the commentators cites Jason Santa Maria’s site as an example of beauty and accessibility. In my opinion, it’s not (although it’s certainly not as magnificently unreadable as For a Beautiful Web), but that doesn’t matter as it’s a showcase for JSM’s great graphical and typographical talents. Ditto Dustin Curtis. I’m sure their client work is perfectly readable and beautiful.