3 ms·
"Ridiculous" is subjective, but I tend to go by WebAIM's contrast guidelines for web accessibility when looking at text color vs. background color. While #555 t
by chipotle_coyote 8y ago
"Ridiculous" is subjective, but I tend to go by WebAIM's contrast guidelines for web accessibility when looking at text color vs. background color. While #555 text would be lighter than what I'd normally pick, if it's on an #FFF background, it's a contrast ratio of 7.45:1 -- which means it passes the most stringent WebAIM requirement (level AAA for normal text, which is a minimum of 7:1 contrast).
While I've definitely seen web pages that have gone bonkers with light grey text on an off-white background, a lot of folks seem to greatly overestimate how difficult to read "grey text" is. I've seen folks on HN rail against #444 text -- which even on an #EEE background is over an 8:1 contrast ratio.
- wtallis 8y agoIs it accurate to call those numbers contrast ratios when you seem to be ignoring gamma correction?
- chipotle_coyote 8y agoYou can take that up with the maintainers of the WebAIM contrast checker, if you think it horribly biases the results somehow. https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
- userbinator 8y agoa lot of folks seem to greatly overestimate how difficult to read "grey text" is That's their eyes against your words, and I'd be far more likely to trust the judgement of their eyes because they are the ones consuming your content. A lot of designers seem to love ignoring the complaints of their users, forgetting that those users are their audience and pissing them off will quickly make them leave.
- mickael-kerjean 8y agoThank you for bringing that up, I had no idea about this contrast ratio thinghy at 7:1, I'll make sure to comply in the future!
- mixmastamyk 8y agoChoosing the absolute minimum acceptable readability is not something to shoot for imho.