xi claims that he can see no difference regarding examples demonstrating the deficiency of WCAG2 vs the demonstrated efficacy of APCA

[Myndex]

Extension of #2 whcih you closed before I could comment.

The images you posted are far from obvious evidence, at least for me. I am not sure why you treat them as such.

So then you are claiming that, in the following two samples, the one on the LEFT is equally readable as the one on the RIGHT:

And you are therefore further claiming that, in the following two samples, one of these is substantially less readable

Before I go further, I want to clarify that you are claiming that you see no difference between the top two samples, and the second set of samples. Because that is what you stated in issue #2 that you closed before I could comment.

I look forward to your response.

[xi]

You can still comment on closed issues, and if necessary I can reopen issues on request. But I think in this case it is a good thing to split this out into a separate issue so we can have a more focused discussion.

I also think that "Addressing claims" was too general a title for this issue, so I changed it. I hope you agree with the new title, otherwise feel free to change it to something more fitting.

So then you are claiming that, in the following two samples, the one on the LEFT is equally readable as the one on the RIGHT: And you are therefore further claiming that, in the following two samples, one of these is substantially less readable

Honestly, I am not sure. The difference between the two samples is certainly not "obvious" to me.

But that is not really the point. Showing a single word in a single color to a single person under a single set of viewing conditions fundamentally cannot be "obvious evidence". So even if I personally, in my current viewing conditions, would see a significant difference between the samples that would still not convince me. There needs to be a larger study, including people with different vision deficiencies (see https://github.com/w3c/silver/issues/574).

Maybe, if WCAG was completely and obviously wrong, a few such samples would be sufficient proof that APCA is better. But WCAG really is ok. It has been used for years and did its job. I too believe that it has issues and that APCA might be better. But, since WCAG is already fine, proving that APCA is actually better is much harder than showing a few images.

[xi]

I tried to extract the colors from those images. They use lossy jpg encoding, but I think it is something like the following (@Myndex feel free to correct me):

background	foreground	WCAG2	APCA
#595959	#000000	3.0	20
#ffffff	#969696	3.0	56
#909090	#000000	6.6	45
#eeeeee	#999999	2.5	45

[Myndex]

...including people with different vision deficiencies (see [w3c/silver#574].

That thread was written by some (supposedly) well-meaning but otherwise uninformed individuals who have literally zero experience or knowledge in the area of visual perception and importantly, visual impairments. This is evident in some of their other writings that get key aspects of visual impairments dead wrong. It is a confusing and difficult to parse science, and a science that is still evolving today.

Maybe, if WCAG was completely and obviously wrong, a few such samples would be sufficient proof that APCA is better.

WCAG 2 has been demonstrated as "wrong" when the background is darker than about #b0b0b0.

But WCAG really is ok.

No it isn't. It can not be used in any automated context as it does not follow human perception of text or other high spatial frequency stimuli.

It has been used for years and did its job.

Oh really? More than 86% of websites fail WCAG 2 contrast, and there is significant backlash in the design community because it is demonstrated as incorrect. The backlash is well deserved.

On the subject of "peer review" WCAG 2 was shoved into place with no empirical testing, no peer review, and essentially only the "votes" of a small group of well meaning accessibility advocates who otherwise are not knowledgeable in the area of visual perception—impairments or not.

The "understanding" document of WCAG 2.0 makes patently incorrect claims, and cherry picks from obsolete standards that have literally no relevance to even the technology of 2007, much less that of today.

If you can't see this, despite the ample examples I have presented here and elsewhere, then perhaps you have some unusual visual impairment, and I would like to examine that. Please send an email to perceptex@myndex.com so I can enroll you in the next study.

[xi]

So… there is no issue here. The title is "xi claims he [sic] can see no difference" and that is exactly true. @Myndex cannot decide whether I see a difference or not.

[Myndex]

So… there is no issue here. The title is "xi claims he [sic] can see no difference" and that is exactly true. @Myndex cannot decide whether I see a difference or not.

It is disingenuous to claim that you can not, in other words, I do not believe you.

[Myndex]

The title is "xi claims he [sic] can see no difference" and

COMPLETELY UNRELATED: why did you place [sic] in your quote? Are you identifying as female? Tobias is generally a male name, and you have no indication that you identify as female anywhere I can see. If you prefer a different pronoun please state so implicitly.