[egeozcan]

> That criterion has been there since 1999.

Apparently 2001 (and I stand corrected). But well, I'm learning and improving am I not? I was a worse web developer a decade ago than I am now, and I am proud of that.

> Stop being so hostile.

You are the one who analyzed my personal website and reported a single color contrast issue to dismiss my complaint, why am I hostile? Regardless of that discussion, isn't my point coming across: Do we need to be authority on issues we report?

I tried to help, linked some resources, why is that wrong? I feel rather you being hostile.

> Ironically on the referenced page they make the same mistake as you regarding color shades.

Okay now you get to criticize open source libraries?

Anyway, few years ago I created an SVG based charting library for internal use, and we did (and still have) users with sight impairments, and yes it is hard to make it right. NVDA is a pain to bring under control, at least :) And a colleague of mine said something I really like: You cannot make software completely accessible, even for a perfectly capable person with above-human IQ, no, but you can make it always more accessible. It's great that they are trying!

> I can do this all day

What you are doing is something I sincerely don't understand. Teaching me a lesson? Proving I was over the line? Reading my first comment, I did see it's a bit whiny, and in another branch I tried to apologize. Whatever it is, maybe we are misunderstanding each other and perhaps everything is coming across more and more hostile. I do apologize from you if it came across to you like that too.

[supermatt]

>> That criterion has been there since 1999.

> Apparently 2001

Nope, May 1999: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WAI-WEBCONTENT

> I do apologize

No problem.

[egeozcan]

> No problem.

So apparently I didn't have to second-guess myself :)

> Nope, May 1999

That's not what you think it is: https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990324/wai-pagea...

The one which the previous version of my site failed to validate is apparently published in 2008: https://www.w3.org/standards/history/WCAG20 and when I wrote those styles back in who knows when [edit: found it, 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20141219164444/https://egeozcan.... ], I wasn't aware of it. I first said 2001 because I looked at the first draft.

edit: So my 2014 version of the site gets 65, and the current one gets 95 from lighthouse accessibility check with current standards.

[supermatt]

> That's not what you think it is:

Its exactly what I think it is: "Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast" (with reference to lighthouse.org for specifics about contrast).

They didn't specifically define that ratio in the doc until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really.

[egeozcan]

> They didn't specifically define "sufficient" until WCAG 2, but thats irrelevant really.

It is relevant. I didn't have any means to test it, and that's what I saw as sufficient back then. You never admit you were wrong, I assume?

edit: you edited your comment, so here is the lighthouse.org page: https://web.archive.org/web/20080211110529/http://www.lighth... There was no ratio, so it's just my gut feeling which WCAG 2 had apparently decided was not enough and I didn't know it back then - not that there were enough tooling.

[supermatt]

They explain how to test it on the WCAG link you gave. I never said they mentioned a ratio on the lighthouse page. Pretty sure i have not been wrong about anything in this discussion so far... Shall we continue?

[egeozcan]

Oh you were (like your very last points even), you just keep changing focus. But I'll let it be because I have no more time for these. good luck with your further discussions :)