My main point is that people are using it now to calculate „accessible“ contrast but as long as WCAG 3 is not a standard (or WCAG2 is not amended), colors meeting APCA thresholds will not always meet WCAG2 contrast requirements. People cannot use it if they need to meet WCAG 2.

And yes, the conformance model of WCAG 3 is in development, so who knows what the thresholds are. You say Lc 60 and 75 could be used as a simplification but in the end you don’t know if that will be WCAG 3 compliant or not. Because it is not done.

That was what I said and you confirmed. Sorry if there is criticism of your color contrast model and how it is used in WCAG 3. Consensus and discussion is the root of how standards are developed. You can either listen to these suggestions if people doing WCAG conformance testing

… every day, or you do not. I personally don’t care if you do. I put my concerns out there specifically for that use case. Because I cannot go in day to day testing and say “it’s in the ballpark”. I need to create those lookup tables and justify them. And all I want is 1 example

You know, it is incredibly demotivating.We are supposed to figure out how to use these things in practice before they get published and then these big changes swoop in and whenever you ask for specifics it’s “let’s figure this out later”. No, this is the time.

In the end, implementation matters. If accessibility requirements are easy to implement, they will be. Having more color options help. Hiding them behind a maze of considerations does not. It is not a simple thing to work out. I want this to be better and clearer.

Maybe we don’t share that goal, maybe we do. But saying “hold your horses, WCAG 3 is not ready, and determining compliance is probably more complicated than the raw Lc value” is not misrepresenting the facts. Feel free to ignore or block me. I have voiced my concerns in the past

Hey do I have to turn the car around kids? Shouting out on Twitter can work very fucking well

Yes it can when it's honest.