- From: Tobias Bengfort <tobias.bengfort@posteo.de>
- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 10:35:16 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <56DBF9D4.5070807@posteo.de>
Hi, I recently filed a bug report with Less[1] because I thought they may have confused the terms "luminance" and "luma". They use luma to calculate the color contrast although the spec clearly states that you have to use "relative luminance"[2]. We came to the conclusion that Less is actually right and the spec may be wrong. From an article by Charles Poynton[3] I understand that the term "luminance" has been used ambiguously in the past and the term "luma" has been specifically invented to allow a clear distinction. The wrong wording in the spec may therefore be a relic of that ambiguous past. So am I correct in thinking that the spec actually refers to luma? If that is the case, how can it be fixed? I assume that the definition of color contrast was taken from another specification, so it may not necessarily be a good idea to change the wording there. In that case, there should at least be a note about the luminance/luma ambiguity in the "Understanding WCAG 2.0" document[4]. tobias [1]: https://github.com/less/less.js/issues/2829 [2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contrast-ratiodef [3]: http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/YUV_and_luminance_harmful.pdf [4]: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2016 09:36:00 UTC