HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
w3c
wcag
HTML2020–2023
w3c / wcag

wcag

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

6Distinct people
6Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
1.5KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year6 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-05-20 12:56:51 UTC to 2023-05-07 22:20:15 UTC.

01232020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

6 sources
> This isn't subjective or aesthetics, it's an objective measurement. I’m going to push back against this slightly (I’m not disagreeing that the HN contrast is bad, but I am challenging the WCAG ratios). It’s objective, but it’s not a good measurement. WCAG computes contrast in sRGB, which is not perceptually uniform. As such there are cases where WCAG will give better scores to worse contrast. For example, the WCAG math prefers black text on a medium blue background to white text on a medium blue background, which is the exact inverse to what most people feel is most legible. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/695 It’s the biggest thing I wish would be changed in the WCAG.
In Contrast Rebellion
The WCAG contrast ratio bit is good. People regularly treat the contrast ratio number as an oracle, but it’s actually a pretty poor scale, and not perceptually uniform. As seen here, a contrast ratio of 3 against a white background is almost certainly more distinct than a contrast ratio of 4 against a very dark background, and may even be more distinct than 5, depending on the device (rule of thumb that I just made up on the spot: TN LCD panels, which mostly means cheaper devices, will suffer more from low contrast on dark backgrounds). For good figures, you need a non-linear perceptual scale, and to consider hue, saturation, ambient lighting (meaning both lighting in the room—good luck on that one!—and on the rest of the surface you control), and the nature of illuminated displays of various kinds. And probably other things too. https://
Read the rest
github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/695 is a good discussion of the issues and possible solutions, with https://www.myndex.com/SAPC/ demonstrating the work in progress. As you can see, it’s very much a research area. In the short term, if you want to use the WCAG contrast ratio: if you’re using a light background, the 3 and 4.5 recommendations are probably OK, but if you’re using a dark background, bump up your requirements a fair way: go for at least one, probably two (so maybe 4.5 and 6 instead of 3 and 4.5). One other thing that people routinely completely ignore in colour contrast matters is font weight. If the font is thinner, the contrast needs to be stronger to balance it out. I’m pleased that the SAPC/APCA work that’s happening takes this into account.
In Reasoning about Colors

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.