7 ms·
It’s a little sad the most widely used algorithms/guidance for contrast accessibility do not have peer reviewed evidence behind them. This goes for 2.1 and the
by whoopsie 3y ago
It’s a little sad the most widely used algorithms/guidance for contrast accessibility do not have peer reviewed evidence behind them. This goes for 2.1 and the upcoming standard. For something so impactful, I wish the industry help sponsor rigor here.
- refulgentis 3y agoIt’s not true, this is a meme that started around 2020 and color suffers the more for it. It’s funny, in a sad way, when you dig into it. The ‘scientific’ version is about 5 lightness points different from WCAG, on a scale of 100. That isn’t a coincidence. put somewhat more directly, it sure is funny these people made up contrast ratio out of thin air without evidence, and the answer that will save us has basically the same #s
- Myndex 3y agoWCAG 2.x was neither peer reviewed nor empirically tested—true. However this is not the case for the candidate for WCAG 3, which is APCA. APCA has been in public beta testing for two and a half years, is the subject of ongoing empirical studies, and does already have journal published peer review, as well as independent peer reviews by PhDs, vision scientists, data scientists, and other technologists. See a partial listing of reviews: https://git.apcacontrast.com/documentation/independent-review https://git.apcacontrast.com/documentation/independent-revie...