You may wonder why we didn’t just use L*a*b*’s hue and chroma measures, then, we could have just use L*a*b*! However, when we tried using it in design, L*a*b* was too inconsistent perceptually.
But the article does not explain why HCT doesn't use CAM16 J for the "tone" value instead of CIELAB L*. Wouldn't we have the same benefit of only working with one standard color system and not having to glue together L* and Ch in the solver?
Yeah, this is to get a quotable response to add to Wikipedia. But I'm also actually curious: is being able to get the contrast from the XYZ (skipping the CAM) that useful? Maybe there's some reasoning I've missed here?
The Science of Color & Design explains why HCT uses CAM16 Ch instead of CIELAB chroma:
But the article does not explain why HCT doesn't use CAM16 J for the "tone" value instead of CIELAB L*. Wouldn't we have the same benefit of only working with one standard color system and not having to glue together L* and Ch in the solver?
Yeah, this is to get a quotable response to add to Wikipedia. But I'm also actually curious: is being able to get the contrast from the XYZ (skipping the CAM) that useful? Maybe there's some reasoning I've missed here?