- From: Matthew McCune via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:07:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@una I believe that still runs contrary to the current function of `color-contrast`, which is to get the best possible color from a set of colors. This is definitely just personal opinion, but I find that "get a color with an acceptable contrast ratio" would be much more useful than "get a color that is closest to this ratio, even if it fails to pass this ratio." Its definitely worth hearing more people's opinions on this, though.
@svgeesus I may have explained it poorly too, lol. The issue I have with it is say if multiple colors in the set have a greater ratio than the target, it will select the worst of the bunch. For example, if I have `color-contrast(#000 #FFF, #CCC, #333 13.0)`, it will select `#CCC`, despite it being the worst of the two that pass the ratio requirement. Whereas the `color-contrast` function without a ratio would return `#FFF`.
In the case where none of the provided colors meet the required ratio, how would designers implement a fallback to this? They could potentially just "chain" the same `color-contast` function (without a ratio specified), but then this would 1) not provide an acceptable ratio and 2) be much less ergonomic than using a single function, as it would require them to do something like:
```
.class {
color: contrast-color(#000 #111, #222, #333);
/* Fails to pass contrast check; I assume this is an invalid property value, so it will fallback to above */
color: contrast-color(#000 #111, #222, #333 3.0);
}
```
--
GitHub Notification of comment by devmattrick
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4749#issuecomment-582701963 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2020 02:07:09 UTC