Re: Summary and Minutes of Silver meeting of 20 December 2019

Here are some updates relevant to key topics, comments inline (as always, indented and purple means in-depth minutiae, green means sarcasm, humor, and off topic tangents), :


> On Dec 20, 2019, at 12:23 PM, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> == Summary ==
> A spirited discussion…
> 

(Andy was louder than usual...  :)
> of the new formulas for visual contrast and a table for interpreting them.  It took the entire meeting. 
> 

I really did try to stick to my notes, really I di… oh hey look a squirrel! did you know that squirrels in Toronto are black? I mean jet black, like, negative squirrels. Or maybe they’re anti-matter squirrels? I mention this while it may seem tangential and funny, the first time I was in Toronto and saw the black squirrels, I was completely distracted and unable to remember what I was doing (I was there to sell a patent). This is what happens and/or what is meant for some cognitive difficulties with some websites that shove unexpected stimuli into someone’s face, and they completely lose focus. It’s important to consider for design, especially workplace and services access (health care, etc.).  Avoid squirrels in web design. 
> Highlights: 
> The math and pseudocode for are in the visual contrast <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmTpfgublIqRggMVbrwo55FMlyJo3Avp_TAvpuFttxI/edit#> draft.  Only look at pages 1-7.  Pages 8 and up are older versions being saved for the moment.  The new formula is based on solid science of perception.  It is not adapted for different monitors and ambient conditions, although it can be expanded to do that in the future if desired.  
There will be a tiny adjustment to ensure I accommodate some concerns of Bruce’s — I only mention this if someone is going to make a javascript version, please let me know in the short term so I can ensure you have the most up to date.

> The font sizes are based on the CSS reference pixel.  There was discussion of the need for the point equivalent for designers and tools that still use points.  We agreed to provide both.  While there was discussion of print, we aren't doing contrast for print in SIlver.    
I added relative point sizes in the table of results. 
I don’t see a need for other measures, but please let me know if there is one. I did a survey of some applications, such as Microsquish Word, and in the utter garbage it spits out for “export to web” it does use pt, not px. I know some very recent Adobe apps have had some issues converting correctly (XD). And then, Android uses their own “DP” unit. I am not an Android dev, so not sure of the relation. Nevertheless, for accessibility purposes, the CSS reference px is most relevant due to its relationshipt to visual angle.
> We discussed the table of Acceptable Results.  While the table provides equivalencies to current WCAG for comfort, it turned out that those equivalencies generated a lot of discussion because it appears that we are making the requirements much tougher.  This is deceptive because WCAG 4.5:1 values are not uniform across the visual spectrum.  For example, darker colors may meet WCAG 4.5:1, but actually are perceived as being much lower, such as 3:1.  The lighter colors are more equivalent to WCAG 4.5:1.  
There is some discussion and charts that make the differences much more clear on one of my Perception site pages:

 https://www.myndex.com/WEB/WCAG_CE17polarity <https://www.myndex.com/WEB/WCAG_CE17polarity>

Note: it is intended for desktop, may not be responsive for all devices.


> We discussed the 3 color problem which is part of the reason that WCAG used a lower 4.5:1.  This is covered in the table as a separate category.  The apparent change to 7:1 is only for blocks of text that are using a thin stroke font.  Blocks of colors are not changing substantially, as are bold or large fonts.  It's the width of the color that is important for contrast.  
I am investigating, I don’t think this is going to be a problem so long as we set the bright line at NORMAL WEIGHT and heavier, which would be in keeping with current WCAG  guidelines, and then put the 300, 200 weight fonts with the higher contrast….

BUT ALSO, 

Something I only mentioned in passing,  but is nevertheless important relates to the crux of the grey font problem all over the web. A key result of my investigation into the light font problem is none other than….

{ WEBKIT-FONT-SMOOTHING: ANTIALIASING }

Seriously?! This should be banned, and considered malware or a virus… it has infected just about every template for WP and many others, and it’s garbage. And I have reason to believe that most of the times it is in use is unintentionally or even unknown.

It reduces the font weight by as much as half, and REDUCES CONTRAST by half or more. If you set a 4.5:1 contrast, but use font smooth on a 200 weight font, your actual contrast will get reduced as low as to 2:1.

I am working on language to incorporate that will spec difference size, weight, and contrast if webkit font smooth is set to anything other than default or auto. The typical DEFAULT is “subpixel anti aliasing” but as you might guess by the name, probably confuses many.

Caveman chant: Subpixel GOOD, Antialias smooth BAD. — Oggg.
> We agree that the document we want to use a narrow scope for the first draft and that the section of pseudocode is in good shape for the first draft.  More help is needed to write Methods.  
I have never really grasped the difference between a test and a method — are there examples yet to compare to? Or are we still blazing the new frontier trail?
> There will be informal meetings happening over the holidays during the regular meeting times (not the Conformance meeting time), but there will be no formal meeting until 7 January.  
I’m going to be here in my studio/lab/place with lots of servers all week, so feel free to contact me with any questions.


ON FONTS:

On my ResearchGate account I created a PDF you can download with lots of font examples and very brief commentary on design aspects that are good - or not good - for accessibility. The link is:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336679010_Evaluating_Fonts_Font_Family_Selection_for_Accessibility_Display_Readability

Somers, A.
Evaluating Fonts: Font Family Selection for Accessibility & Display Readability
October 2019    DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28058.80320
 <https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.13140%2FRG.2.2.28058.80320?_sg%5B0%5D=mXfUtG1kRTxqH5o-NRTOwkuqYVqK7ErcmjbT0YoFfwWKzsjgkenbfMlVvwrqDtHkKy3ZxpY8yeooq7kS-rkGPqzJTg.qJTkqFELd57YHxBtCQ95w409cdCfaOeVgYoZ7ZuJ09dh1u2xEYL6hyfn5febELQM0F1mQG77RMGDF6GwOosFAg>


Happy Holidays !

Andy

Andrew Somers 
Senior Color Science Researcher 
PerceptEx Perception Research Project <https://www.myndex.com/perceptex/>

Address redacted for web archive