Personally I don't find pure red on white very readable, but I have noticed some oddities such as pure black on orange (#ff6a00) passing the check while pure white on orange fails, despite being much more readable to my eye.
When I get my eyes tested at the opticians, one of the tests is usually looking at a red ring and a green ring against a white background and telling the optician which ring seems clearer. I think it's something to do with long/short sightedness? I'm shortsighted so the red ring is always clearer to me without glasses, and trying to read green writing on a whiteboard can be more difficult.
i.e. #ff0000 on #ffffff
There are different forms of colour blindness - I have the red-green type (though can't correctly identify many colours), but I don't think it should make any difference for this.
Also, a related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21357638
As somebody has already pointed color contrast is defined by a relative luminosity calculation defined by W3C.
A pet peeve of mine is that "red on white" is considered bad while being, in fact, perfectly legible:
> Element has insufficient color contrast of 3.99 (foreground color: #ff0000, background color: #ffffff, font size: 9.4pt (12.6px), font weight: normal). Expected contrast ratio of 4.5:1
I think whatever algorithm is used to determine contrast is deeply flawed for some colour combinations.
I remember reading an article here on HN about how luminance (or luminosity?) varied in a way that wasn't easily discernible by inspecting the RGB components of a colour and how there was a different (much harder) algorithm which instead ensured luminosity could be taken into account when picking colours for a site.
I'd wish accessibility tests used _that_ instead of taking the easy way out and using known-flawed RGB checks.