- From: Alastair Campbell via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 10:31:46 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> E.g. we know that [WCAG 2.1 contrast is severely broken](https://www.cedc.tools/article.html), I think that is overblown, the article says (several times) "if the ‘APCA Lightness Contrast’ is more accurate...". If it isn't, the conclusions are not applicable. When I've run usability testing with people with low vision, there has been good correlation between colours they struggled with, and WCAG 2 fails. I've been following the work (as a non-colour expert) and I think APCA is probably a better formula, and we should continue to work incorporating a better formula into WCAG 3. I'm just requesting that people in W3C don't use language like "severely broken", when the overall impact of the current guideline is still a net positive. -- GitHub Notification of comment by alastc Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7357#issuecomment-1157502995 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2022 10:31:47 UTC