News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Colors and accessibility by airstrike on Tuesday March 12, 2019 @12:35PM (#19369986)
I love the concept, but I would appreciate if they provided some more color around the WCAG standard it uses.

I also don't understand how #EB8521 or #00BBC9 could outright fail even the Headlines test when they're so clearly legible, which makes me think maybe this WCAG standard is not what I really want to optimize for, thank you very much.

Re:Colors and accessibility by haldean on Tuesday March 12, 2019 @02:13PM (#19371230)
I'm not colorblind, but this is almost illegible to me: https://i.imgur.com/izGP46r.png

This is the luminosity of that mapped to grayscale. You can see why it might be difficult for colorblind people to read: https://i.imgur.com/Pyxt1NR.png

Re:Colors and accessibility by CharlesW on Tuesday March 12, 2019 @12:48PM (#19370196)
> I also don't understand how #EB8521 or #00BBC9 could outright fail even the Headlines test when they're so clearly legible…

…to you, in (I assume) good or great viewing conditions. For other folks, and/or in challenging viewing conditions, they'll be significantly more difficult to read than higher-contrast options.

Re:Colors and accessibility by gotland_ on Tuesday March 12, 2019 @01:00PM (#19370345)
Hi, Anton, the creator of Color.review here.

I can agree that WCAG guidelines are a bit harsh sometimes but it makes sure that everyone have a good chance to view the content. Eyes, colors & computers interact in complex ways.

Also, in many countries, by law, you have to follow WCAG, specially for the public sector.

If you are interested how and what values W3 have chosen you can read more here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/contrast-enhance...

Don't fully understand what you mean by providing "color around the WCAG".

Re:Colors and accessibility by airstrike on Tuesday March 12, 2019 @01:15PM (#19370535)
Thanks! Appreciate the link.

> Don't fully understand what you mean by providing "color around the WCAG".

I suppose that was a bad attempt at a pun... I've changed the wording slightly to make it more obvious ;-)