- From: Brent Kimmel via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:58:11 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@Myndex Thank you for including those illustrations, that makes it a lot more clear. I think we're converging on a point here: What I'm asking for - essentially - is the thing you called out: "add sufficient backing to keep a visual separation between the text and the busy background" but instead of putting a "huge shadow that smacks over the whole background image, even pixels that don't need it to achieve 'sufficient contrast'" we instead "tell the user agent to create that shadow only where it's needed". Why? Because we've _had_ text shadow for a long time, but designers _won't use it_ because it _indiscriminately_ damages pixels in their creative assets even in places where it doesn't really need to. This was my (crude) example:  Where the shadow is _only_ added where it's needed. I think the crux of what I'm suggesting here is this: We've had access to `text-shadow` since September 3rd, 2012: https://caniuse.com/?search=text-shadow ... and we have to admit, it hasn't helped this problem much. I think the reason is because of pushback from visual designers. If we gave an inch on the issue of calculating the "perfect" contrast, we might get a mile in actual changes that help real people read things on the Web. I.e. **"I'm going to put a giant distracting shadow behind _all your text_"** is a hard thing to sell your designer. **"I'm going to turn on a setting in CSS that helps readability, but it won't do anything unless you choose/create an asset that traps the font in areas of low contrast and then it will only effect that area of the image"** is an easier sell, maybe? Anyway, the core point is that you adjust the pixels _not in the text itself_, but in the _area behind the text_ so I think we're kind of agreeing here. Aside: The research you put a link to there is really interesting. I'm having a fun time reading it, but the link you put in the comment above goes to `https://www.myndex.com/SPAC/` which is a 404 for me. Did you mean https://www.myndex.com/SAPC/ I'm guessing? -- GitHub Notification of comment by bkimmel Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6305#issuecomment-965544941 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2021 16:58:13 UTC