The most interesting part to me (as someone with vision problems) was the WebAIM link [1]. The biggest problem I have is with the almost total blind adoption of low contrast (so often too low for me to even read) and sure enough the section about low contrast [2] says:
"found on 86.3% of home pages. _This was the most commonly-detected accessibility issue_.
My basic question then is why do so many designers and websites choose to break the WCAG guidelines?
From my experience, it is often not an active choice to break the guidelines. It's rather the lack of knowledge/experience or ignorance - or a mix of both ("What is this accessibility thing? Do we need it?").
For contrast ratio specifically, I wished more people would adapt the approach that USWDS uses [1]. It enforces accessible color combinations by using standardized naming with a special property. E.g., I know that `blue-60` on `purple-10` is accessible (WCAG AA), because the absolute difference is 50+ (60 - 10). I'm currently writing a blog post regarding this approach to spread the awareness.
The easiest explanation is that the company hasn't been sued yet. Once a company gets sued and has to settle out of court, suddenly everyone will care about a11y.
The most interesting part to me (as someone with vision problems) was the WebAIM link [1]. The biggest problem I have is with the almost total blind adoption of low contrast (so often too low for me to even read) and sure enough the section about low contrast [2] says:
"found on 86.3% of home pages. _This was the most commonly-detected accessibility issue_.
My basic question then is why do so many designers and websites choose to break the WCAG guidelines?
[1] https://webaim.org/projects/million
[2] https://webaim.org/projects/million/#contrast