You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm posting this as a follow-up to #46. I think that issue is very broad so I'm suggesting we start a bit smaller, with a single piece of the puzzle. Lets find some agreement there, and then expand the scope. I'd choose to start with raw accessibility.
It seems the first critical matter would be the accessibility of our baseline FG/BG pair, I'm referring to:
If a theme was going to get one thing right, it should be this... my understanding is that this would be all text that isn't targeted for some more specific syntax coloring, ie, potentially a LOT of text.
So I'm just running a quick scan on the entire schemes repo using the APCA-w3 library... asking it for the Lc (contrast) value of our key base00/base05 pairing... the negative values just indicate a reverse pairing (ie dark mode, vs light mode)... the positive and negative numbers are comparable. If you decide 75 is good then you should be happy with -75 or +75 equally.
Here is how our themes currently breakdown:
6 themes < 30 Lc
24 themes < 45 Lc
63 themes < 60 Lc
133 themes < 75 Lc
199 themes < 90 Lc
232 themes total.
(this is not banded, so the < 45 includes the <30 etc)
Unlike WCAG the numbers must always be adjusted for font-size... so a 50Lc might be fine at 64px but terrible at 16px... (see the font table below)
So if we're going to have a rule (or guideline) at all we first need to decide on a "minimum text size and weight" that we're going to use... and that would tell us which Lc range we should be targetting.
APCA defines 30 as the "minimum contrast for any text" so I'd say 6 of our themes are failing terribly by any measure... For refernce:
The most similar to WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility (for those familiar with such things) is APCA Lc 60... of which 63 of our themes fall below. The WCAG 2.1 AA "large text" is comparable to APCA Lc 45.
I had includes the tables here but GitHub zooms them hugely so I think it better to link to the APCA library:
I think if we're going to pick a single value we need to be very clear on what is it we're doing with that value... is this a rule? a guideline? And that might even determine the value... ie if we're making a hard rule - and "kicking themes out" (or not allowing them in) then perhaps it should err a little on the generous side... if we're proposing merely a guideline, perhaps we could go higher...
Or perhaps we allow a range.
We recommend it be above 70
But it absolutely cannot be lower then 45, hard rule.
if we're making a hard rule - and "kicking themes out" (or not allowing them in) then perhaps it should err a little on the generous side... if we're proposing merely a guideline, perhaps we could go higher...
i think just putting wcag-compliant (or non-compliant) themes to a separate directory/repo might be a good compromise
I'm posting this as a follow-up to #46. I think that issue is very broad so I'm suggesting we start a bit smaller, with a single piece of the puzzle. Lets find some agreement there, and then expand the scope. I'd choose to start with raw accessibility.
It seems the first critical matter would be the accessibility of our baseline FG/BG pair, I'm referring to:
If a theme was going to get one thing right, it should be this... my understanding is that this would be all text that isn't targeted for some more specific syntax coloring, ie, potentially a LOT of text.
So I'm just running a quick scan on the entire schemes repo using the APCA-w3 library... asking it for the Lc (contrast) value of our key base00/base05 pairing... the negative values just indicate a reverse pairing (ie dark mode, vs light mode)... the positive and negative numbers are comparable. If you decide 75 is good then you should be happy with -75 or +75 equally.
Here is how our themes currently breakdown:
(this is not banded, so the < 45 includes the <30 etc)
Unlike WCAG the numbers must always be adjusted for font-size... so a 50Lc might be fine at 64px but terrible at 16px... (see the font table below)
So if we're going to have a rule (or guideline) at all we first need to decide on a "minimum text size and weight" that we're going to use... and that would tell us which
Lc
range we should be targetting.APCA defines 30 as the "minimum contrast for any text" so I'd say 6 of our themes are failing terribly by any measure... For refernce:
The most similar to WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility (for those familiar with such things) is APCA Lc 60... of which 63 of our themes fall below. The WCAG 2.1 AA "large text" is comparable to APCA Lc 45.
I had includes the tables here but GitHub zooms them hugely so I think it better to link to the APCA library:
https://github.com/Myndex/apca-w3#font-lookup-table
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: