[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 :)

[supermatt]

My focus has solely been on the contrast aspect, as per my original post. But at least we have cleared up your misunderstandings, so I guess we can leave it there. Have a good day!

[egeozcan]

Perhaps you need to re-read, it was never just the contrast, see my first reply to you, and try to understand my point, which you yourself proved later.

You were right from the start, I had created a site 9 years ago that gets only 65 points in an accessibility check today! So I can't suggest anyone to focus on accessibility?!

You too have a nice day!