- From: Andrew Somers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 18:56:29 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Hi @jpohhhh > 2. ..._to the main point that it doesn't make sense to describe WCAG 2.0 as severely broken, that's very charged language, and _from your perspective_, I agree. having that perspective is what motivates one to work on problems like this._ Just to point out, this is not new (I started this project with post #695 circa April 2019) and I am not the only one, this issue has been widely criticized, including back in 2007 when objections from IBM were ignored for instance. I layout the basis of the problems in the 44,000 word thread #695 back in 2019. > _However, once other people, in a more formal setting, justify that perspective via a couple people with standard color vision noticing that magnitude of luminance difference is different from magnitude of color difference...that's...not good. At all._ First, this is not true on the fact of it. I do not have standard vision. I WAS legally blind due to severe early onset cataracts, and now 6 surgeries later I have low vision. Yay. But the conflation of visual function and color insensitivity is a spurious one. For readability, only achromatic luminance contrast is critical. Color is useful for discrimination of objects, but not for reading. These are two completely separate visual functions. > 4. _I know about red/black, WCAG 2.x has called that out explicitly._ It is only mentioned in the "understanding document" but is NOT considered in the algorithm. In APCA, the algorithm specifically derates red and fails it as part of the math. And the protan compensator does so even more strongly. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Myndex Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7357#issuecomment-1182273411 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2022 18:56:31 UTC