Myndex
commented
3 years ago Hi Michael @mfairchild365, thank you for the comment. You know there is a famous color scientist named Mark Fairchild.
The work, research, and changes to the color contrast formula is an amazing step in the right direction from what I can tell.
Thank you
Thank you, this is a multi-year project, and we are not even at the mid-point.
However, I'm not a color scientist and I honestly don't understand the science behind it. I can't find anything regarding whether or not the research has been peer reviewed by other color scientists. This raises further questions and concerns for me because this sort of change could have vast ramifications into the future.
All important considerations, and yes I know color science is a VERY difficult subject, abstract, and not well understood by most — the fact we are taught incorrect things (like primary colors) early in life does not help!!
Solid Science and Links
Everything I am doing is based on a solid foundation of science, including modern appearance models such as the Hunt model, R-LAB, and others, and much more.
Here are the basic links, several including extensive bibliographies, and among these links are dozens of further links covering the information you are asking for.
W3 Wiki (essential whitepaper materials) This includes an extensive bibliography.
Discussion of Experiment CE_17 While this was over a year ago, it is a good summation of the general principals involved. Also at this same site are other experimental results that you can review for yourself.
Fonts for Accessibility A review of several dozen fonts discussing the accessibility implications.
Gist on the "Orange Conundrum" A demonstration of why the old math has a high error rate.
Issue #695 on the WCAG github, that started this journey. I am on record regarding the underlying issues of the current 1.4.3.
CVD Simulator This is an app I created that simulates Color Vision Deficiency (often incorrectly called "color blind").
SAPC Development and Research Site This is the public facing beta of SAPC and the APCA algorithm. Here, there is a "research mode" with interactive experiments you can examine for yourself.
Evaluation and Evidence
_Questions that I'd like answered:
- Has the research and outcomes been peer reviewed? If yes, by who and what are their credentials? If no, when will it be peer reviewed?_
All my work is grounded in a solid foundation of modern vision science. See the bibliographies. In addition there has been frequent informal peer review and discussion. If you are asking about peer-reviewed publications, you may not be aware, but the author does not get paid — they have to pay, and it can be substantial. W3 is a non-profit, and there is no such budget allowed.
There are patents applied for or in progress thereof. I do have multiple papers I am working on for peer reviewed publication, at my own expense. This is a process that can take years (I've heard of researchers waiting 3 or more years for publication). As such it is impossible to quote you any date. And peer review boards are typically anonymous.
Regardless, On several of the associated links above I provide prima facie evidence, and you don't need to be a color scientist to grasp them — it is plain as day to see, in particular the side by side comparisons.
MOREOVER: peer review does not mean that the efficacy of something is valid. It is trivial to point to peer reviewed published materials that were found to be utterly bogus. The value, while of some importance, should not be over-emphasized.
- Was the research tested with actual humans? If so, what was the makeup of the sample, sample size, and research methodology? If no, will this happen?
Yes of course, human test subjects have been involved from the start. COVID put a damper on the larger planned mass-public study, now set for next summer. Many experimental results and discussions are on the above links. Explore. I've been fairly open about the process.
* Is the research reproducible?
I have provided links that include interactive experiments that you can evaluate in the privacy and comfort of your own home. The prima facie evidence for you to evaluate is right there in the viewable, easy to use, and reproducible results.
Evidence in Solution
(No stirring needed)
Again, I'm pleased to see progress here, but I'd feel much more comfortable if I could answer those questions.
If it helps you to grasp this, the current WCAG 2 contrast spec was not peer reviewed research, and otherwise was based in-priori, in some places citing incorrect references, including some incorrect math, and there have been papers by others written on this problem. As I noted above, I started GitHub issue #695 nearly two years ago pointing out the problems and subsequently set forth to find a real, correct solution.
A solution many have been waiting for. But the subject matter is dense, abstract, and complex — and in some areas of the art there is a lack of consensus, and active research is still undergoing and we are still learning new aspects of visual perception and readability every year.
ME: I am a Hollywood film & television industry professional. I could say that I have half a century of experience in imaging, visual perception, light, optics, etc. (that's If I count I started in photography at age 8, made my first short film at age 10, LOL) Seriously though, this field is my life long passion, with nearly four decades of professional experience in broadcast engineering, film and television production, human perception & related technologies that extend to typography, print, and design. I am a three time Emmy® award winner and my on-screen credits are a matter of public record on IMDB. I was here in Hollywood during the transition from chemical imaging (film) to digital, and the growing pains and the expansion of knowledge that ensued in this area, published articles on work flow, best practices, and so forth.
I lost my eyesight due to early onset cataracts, which has only been partially restored through six surgeries. A bit over two years ago while recovering, I decided to write a book on modern color theory which led to the discovery of the inherent problems with the current 1.4.3 standard. That led to issue #695, and the present research project.
I hope this answers your questions.
Thank you,
Andy
Andrew Somers W3 AGWG Invited Expert Myndex Color Science Researcher Inventor SAPC and the APCA
mfairchild365
patrickhlauke
alastc
jspellman
ChrisLoiselle
joelanman
The work, research, and changes to the color contrast formula is an amazing step in the right direction from what I can tell.
However, I'm not a color scientist and I honestly don't understand the science behind it. I can't find anything regarding whether or not the research has been peer reviewed by other color scientists. This raises further questions and concerns for me because this sort of change could have vast ramifications into the future.
Questions that I'd like answered:
Again, I'm pleased to see progress here, but I'd feel much more comfortable if I could answer those questions.