This repo is a catch-all for posting rebuttals to some of the misplaced, dishonest, or just bizarre rumors or statements regarding the research in visual contrast and readability.
Rebuttal to Yatil's "WCAG 3 is not ready yet"
First posted early December of 2021 as a contrarian response to the several very positive reviews of emerging guidelines for contrast and color, Eric Eggert (Yatil)'s opinion piece has since been re-used or re-posted by others of a small group of individuals who have been actively obstructing the improvement of readability and visual accessibility standards. We refer to them collectively as "the obstructionists".
The piece itself is of little value, but it has come to our attention that it is being used as a reference, being cited with the aim of creating an atmosphere of confusion and animosity. As such, it needs to be challenged. It does not contain facts, but rather a string of provocative logical fallacies, which we dissect on a line by line basis.
GitHub user xi (Tobias Bengfort) created an unauthorized repo called "apca-introduction" which is, unfortunately, misleading. We forked the repo to clarify, make corrections, and set the record straight.
Corrections to xi's Dissing Introduction to APCA
The corrected "The missing introduction to APCA" linked here, was revised for accuracy only, with the intention of maintaining xi's original tone and simplistic presentation. The corrections were necessarry, as the original is significantly and inappropriately biased. For instance, the visual examples are set with low spatial frequency fonts with contrast values well into contrast constancy, so as to hide the true and important differences. In addition, the original repo applied unauthorized modifications to the code, invalidating any results.
Rebuttal to xi's Derailed APCA Analysis
We find user xi's "Detailed analysis of APCA" flawed and misleading for a number of reasons. He misappropriates the math and eliminates key properties of the APCA method. As a result his "analysis" is invalid.
In his blog, xi attempts to examine contrast maths. xi states he has a math degree, and while he admits to being a lay person in the field of vision and color, he asserts inappropriate math to "prove" his theories. But that's not how math and vision science work together, and his claims are neither supportable nor salient.
- Why spend energy to discuss? Because xi has indicated apparent ties to the obstructionist group.
- If in fact xi is following their lead, then everything he states on the subject is motivated not by science but as part of a more significant effort toward preventing the improvement of accessibility.
- This would explain the apparent cognitive dissonance with the faux analysis and corruptions of math and methods, which appears intended to confuse and not to illuminate.
- If in fact xi is following their lead, then everything he states on the subject is motivated not by science but as part of a more significant effort toward preventing the improvement of accessibility.
For more background on APCA and Readability, you may find these links helpful:
- Easy Intro to APCA a brief, easy to read intro to user needs for readability of digital content.
- Myndex Linktree a short curated list of key resources, tools, and documentation.
- The APCA Discussion Forum the discussion forum on GitHub, free to join in the conversation.
- APC-Readability Criteria Public Working Draft of the next generation guidelines for visual accessibility and readability.
We have been made aware of a small group of individuals obstructing the work toward actual accessibility as it pertains to visual readability. Their underlying motivations may seem unclear, though recent insights have implied motivations that are far from altruistic. The visible-yet-vacuous toxic personalities opposing the subject matter, are posturing to feed off a narcissistic supply at the expense of the community. And the cognitive dissonance they have caused through their manipulation, has created a divisive bitterness in the a11y community.
Some of this has impacted the internal politics of the W3C's AGWG, inflaming an untenable and ongoing problem. Our proactive response, to maintain momentum and continue the work and development, has been founding the non-profit Inclusive Reading Technologies, Inc. The APC-Readability Criterion is a public working draft, and provides solid and useful guidance for designers to ensure visual accessibility and improved readability for all users. APC-RC guidelines are derived from the decades of peer-reviewed readability research, as detailed in the several bibliographies contained within.
Legislatures should be aware that portions of WCAG 2 are not fit for use in law or regulation; if it were a voluntary guideline, the potential for harm would not be such a concern, but when elevated to statute law, the potential for harm is unacceptable. The unfortunate part here is that the serious problems of WCAG 2's contrast SCs cast a dark shadow on some important aspects of WCAG 2.
Moreover, the nature of the problems with 1.4.3 and 1.4.11, if elevated to law, result in the blocking of improved and more accessible visual content guidelines, and this is due to the poorly conceived "backwards compatible" rule of WCAG 2.x, which demands that passing a future version automatically passes a former version—a nonsensical stipulation that literally blocks progress and emerging technologies.
These two SCs affect the vast majority of visual web content, yet neither is supported by science, nor peer review, nor testing. WCAG 2's contrast math/methods do not support actual accessibility, and in fact can result in conditions that are worse for those with color vision deficiencies. The understanding docs of WCAG 2.x contain false or misleading information, and the premise lacks scientific support. 1.4.3 and 1.4.11 should not be incorporated into any laws nor regulations. This could be said of a few other SCs, but these two in particular have resulted in the greatest misunderstandings, and the greatest harm to users and readability.
A critical view of the actions here and elsewhere, clearly reveal a motivation to obstruct, with a darker purpose. This can not be allowed to stand. Fixing the significant problems of web content readability is one we take seriously, as is evidenced by our continued development of free-to-use guidelines and technologies.
Considering that the emergence of the World Wide Web as a content distribution system effectively replaced traditional print, the obligation for supporting effective readability of digital content should not be underestimated. Inadaquate or improper standards for visually readable content results in high visual fatigue, inaccessible content, and ultimately reduced reading for a majority of the population. By some measures, reading has decreased by as much as 40% over the last two decades. A seven word meme does not convey understanding the way a seven hundred or seven thousand word article can. Projecting forward, the societal consequence is dystopian at best. A public that does not read is a public shrouded in ignorance, leading to a public ripe for manipulation—as history has shown us all too often.
Consider this when you ask why certain individuals are opposed to improving visual accessibility and readability of digital content.
Thank you for reading.
Yes, I know rebuttal is not spelled like "buttle".
In Terry Gilliam's classic film, "Brazil" a key early plot point is where a literal bug (a flying beetle) was killed by a bureaucrat and falls into a computer's teletype, typing out the last name "Buttle" instead of "Tuttle." As a result one Mr. Buttle was wrongly arrested and interrogated at too high of a voltage, causing his untimely expiration. The film had much to say about the unfortunate side effects from unilateral control by massive bureaucracies.
There was a bitter irony surrounding the film, discussed in the book "The Battle of Brazil", where Terry Gilliam, an uncompromising genius filmmaker, met the "not at all filmmakers" who were running Universal at the time. The film as released in Europe is an artistic masterpiece, the story follows a worker who finds solace from his dull days feeding the bureaucratic machine, by losing himself in his dreams, soaring through the sky as if Icarus with mechanical wings.
Universal's studio head at the time was Sid Sheinberg, who's only attempt at a creative thought was his failed proposal to entitle the film "Back to the Future" as "Space Man From Pluto", obviously having no idea what "Back to the Future" was actually about.
Sid and his bean-counting buddies did not understand Brazil, and unfortunately for Terry, the Euro version was too long per the contract he had with Universal. Terry cut the film down to 132 minutes, but was unable to cut more and retain the story—and as a result, this gave Universal the right to re-cut the film however they pleased. The result was the nearly unwatchable "Sid Sheinberg Love Conquers All" version of Brazil, cut to 90 minutes, given a sappy happy ending befitting a forgettable TV movie of the week (from whence Sid came). This version was a corruption at best, and controversy followed.
Gilliam declared war, and a battle ensued over which version American audiences would be allowed to see. Eventually, it was Gilliam's 132 minute version. But if you haven't seen it, I do recommend the full European cut, available from the Criterion Collection.
This repo, "Tuttle and Buttle" is directly a nod toward Gilliam's film and his resolute stance in protecting his work. In the more general sense, the name of the repo implies the nature of such battles, standing up for what is right, and dismissing the posturing charlatans who follow arbitrary numbers or badly formed rules due to a lack of critical thinking skills.