Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-color-5][css-images-4] Are these features ready to ship? (#7310)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `Is color-contrast() ready to ship?`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Move color-contrast() to CSS Color Level 6`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> topic: Is color-contrast() ready to ship?<br>
&lt;emilio> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7310<br>
&lt;chris> We believe the color-contrast() function needs significant modification  to make it future-compatible and to make it work as intended, and  propose deferring this feature to CSS Color Level 6 so that we can work  on it without holding back the rest of CSS Color 5.<br>
&lt;fantasai> scribe+<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: Had a breakout about color-contrast(), partly prompted by an FO about using WCAG2.1's algorithm<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: That is known to give bad results frequently, particularly in dark mode<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: figures of around 40% being wrong<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: There's work to develop a new one, but not ready, not normatively referenced in WCAG3<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: Also complaints about syntax and so on<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: On the one hand browsers have it working reliably, on the other hand it often give sthe wrong answer<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: We don't want to ship something that is interoperable, but is harmful to the Web platform<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: So we want to shift this to the next level<br>
&lt;lea> q?<br>
&lt;lea> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: Any arguments for not deferring?<br>
&lt;astearns> ack lea<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: I completely agree with deferring it, unfortunately<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: one thing from breakout we wanted feedback from implementers<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: breakbout was me, Chris, Adam, and fantasai<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: Would help if we could ship color-contrast() without a specified algorithm, could use the best available algorithm<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: we're concerned that implementers would be against doing something that changed over time<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7361<br>
&lt;argyle> this? https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7361<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: if we went this route, could ship a subset of functionality sooner<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: but need to make some syntactic changes to make future-compatible first<br>
&lt;chris> q+<br>
&lt;smfr> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: I would worry slightly about defaulting to best available, and then ppl expecting current results, and then getting different results when have a better algorithm<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: yes, that's the worry<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: Yes, concern that it will continue to do what it did earlier<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: Also the target contrast values have different meanings depending on the contrast algorithm<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: so I don't think it makes sense to use a mystery algorithm that works differently later on<br>
&lt;astearns> ack chris<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: it's not small progressive change, it's a major change<br>
&lt;astearns> ack smfr<br>
&lt;fantasai> smfr: I agree with those concerns<br>
&lt;fantasai> smfr: also don't want push the burden of choosing algorithms to web authors<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: I think if we wanna push for something sooner we'd need to go for something very minimal<br>
&lt;lea> q?<br>
&lt;jensimmons> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... if it solves things like github labels or so then good, but everything else would need to be deferred<br>
&lt;emilio> ... if that's something that people thing it's important (having black / white text) maybe we can have a very minimal function<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: even "black or white on this color", WCAG gets wrong substantially a lot of the time<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: I don't think it's worth doing<br>
&lt;astearns> ack jensimmons<br>
&lt;lea> q+<br>
&lt;fantasai> jensimmons: it's very hard to teach authors that what they were doing with a thing earlier, and failing them, it's very hard to unteach that<br>
&lt;fantasai> jensimmons: we might have a year of it working poorly, ppl say "this sucks, don't use it" for the next 5 years<br>
&lt;chris> s/WCAG gets/WCAG 2.1 gets/<br>
&lt;fantasai> jensimmons: super hard to get people to change their habits<br>
&lt;astearns> ack lea<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: I think the idea behind shipping minimal white/black is not that WCAG is good enough, but it is more likely to be able to change it<br>
&lt;fantasai> lea: I think that was the thinking behind it<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: Yes, we would swap in better algorithm as soon as we have it<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: putting aside whether to do simple version at all, sounds like we generally agree that the more complex color-contrast() function needs to be deferred<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: can we resolve on that?<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: Move color-contrast() to CSS Color Level 6<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: I think we could continue discussing possibility of smaller subset of functionality in an issue<br>
&lt;fantasai> astearns: but might be better to continue work on the function that we want, and put that out as quickly as we can<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: Now that we've resolved that, my focus is on remaining bits in Interop 2022<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: color-mix(), interpolation, etc.<br>
&lt;fantasai> chris: so let's move on to other issues<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7310#issuecomment-1156687605 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2022 16:31:52 UTC