4 ms·
> This isn't subjective or aesthetics, it's an objective measurement. I’m going to push back against this slightly (I’m not disagreeing that the HN contrast is
by 542458 3y ago
> This isn't subjective or aesthetics, it's an objective measurement.
I’m going to push back against this slightly (I’m not disagreeing that the HN contrast is bad, but I am challenging the WCAG ratios). It’s objective, but it’s not a good measurement. WCAG computes contrast in sRGB, which is not perceptually uniform. As such there are cases where WCAG will give better scores to worse contrast. For example, the WCAG math prefers black text on a medium blue background to white text on a medium blue background, which is the exact inverse to what most people feel is most legible.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/695 https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/695
It’s the biggest thing I wish would be changed in the WCAG.
- TylerE 3y agoAren’t 99% of users going to be on some random sRGB display, though? How many of us have wide gamut displays that are actually properly calibrated? Looking at the examples from your link is illustrative… several of their 4.5:1 passes are basically unreadable. What I suspect needs to happen is an additional penalty if the background isn’t what would be considered a typical paper color (white, ivory, tan, etc. blues, purples and oranges are right out. )
- zinekeller 3y agoIt's not that it's wrong to focus on sRGB but the computation itself does not use linear gamma (which is not excusable - incorrectly assuming that 2.2 gamma is how people perceive light results on overemphasis on brighter spots)
- crazygringo 3y agoThanks, TIL -- I had no idea. That's a super useful link.