[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!