W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Color contrast (Minimum)

From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 15:29:04 -0400
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <57B36980.3080705@earthlink.net>
Phill Jenkins composed on 2016-08-16 14:01 (UTC-0500):

> 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of text and images of
> text has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the following:
> . . . Incidental: Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user
> interface component, . . .

> Some accessibility professionals are recommending a 3:1 ratio as a best
> practice for inactive elements.

I'm curious where the 4.5 and 3.0 originated. Are they for people with 90th 
percentile vision? They can't be for those at 20th. Why is the threshhold for 
acceptability so bloody low? People with overbright displays can adjust them 
down. Those with underbright cannot adjust beyond 100%. The expansion of gray 
text on the net over recent years is a terrible scourge. Stylists are 
accepting that meeting this low minimum means good enough. It isn't. It means 
unnecessary eyestrain or worse for too many.
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 19:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 August 2016 19:29:35 UTC