> You can have perfectly good contrast with a completely black background and minimal amounts of light. Therein lies the problem: this assumption is incorrect.

> You can have perfectly good contrast with a completely black background and minimal amounts of light. Therein lies the problem: this assumption is incorrect. I encourage you to read what I quoted from that article again. Accessibility can not have a one-size-fits-all approach. Your suggested "medium contrast" to accommodate the different spectrums of visual impairment inevitably detriments both sides. All you're arguing for here is exactly what you're purporting to argue against, which is to assume one party's request for accomodations is less legitimate than another's. It's a superficial form of advocacy, that, while I understand comes from a place of good intentions, does not actually accommodate disabilities in the true spirit of accessibility. I can assure you that the low-contrast accomodation in the linked article would make it difficult for the person who needs a high-contrast accomodation, and vice versa. The comment that started this conversation is correct: all approaches to accessibility must have levers to pull to accommodate everyone. That includes allowing for accomodations in whatever form is reasonable. Extensions that change the way a website is displayed are one such accomodation. By being so rigid, this company has not implemented accessibility, they have implemented changes that shift disadvantage to another party. It's not defensible.