From 4610608d9bd413847098d8aeeac72ce0f92dc096 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tobias Bengfort Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:41:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] tweak analysis --- analysis.md | 17 ++++++----------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/analysis.md b/analysis.md index cf581ab..04b7d69 100644 --- a/analysis.md +++ b/analysis.md @@ -550,19 +550,14 @@ algorithm in many key aspects: - It uses a more sophisticated link between spatial frequency and minimum color contrast that might allow for more nuanced thresholds. -The new contrast formula agrees with WCAG 2.x for 83.9% of randomly picked -color pairs. That number rises to 92.5% for a modified WCAG 2.x formula with a -flare value of 0.4. As far as I understand, this is not a realistic value for -flare. So the physical interpretation might be incorrect. This would however -explain why APCA reports lower contrast for darker colors. - So far I like many of the ideas of APCA, but I am not convinced that they are a significant enough improvement to justify breaking backwards compatibility. I -am also concerned by the [lack of publicly available evidence]. Then again, the -new algorithm cannot really be evaluated without first making some policy -decisions, e.g. which viewing conditions we are aiming for. I hope this -analysis can support the community in figuring out what questions need to be -answered. +am also concerned by the [lack of publicly available evidence]. + +Then again, the new algorithm cannot really be evaluated without first making +some policy decisions, e.g. which viewing conditions we are aiming for. I hope +this analysis can support the community in figuring out what questions need to +be answered. [Web Content Accessibility Guidelines]: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ [sRGB color space]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB