> The thing about pure black isn't that it's unnatural, but that when paired with white its contrast can actually be uncomfortable and less accessible than a slightly toned down color combination (especially on full brightness).
Can you find a citation for that statement? WCAG 2.1[0] mentions minimum contrast, but not maximum. The success criterion page itself is written in #000 on #fff. :)
I don't have a citation, but a personal anecdote: When I was in charge for a website, an elderly woman contacted us and asked, if we could change the black text to a dark grey. She mentioned that the contest was too high, resulting for her in seeing ghost images of the letters. I changed the text color from black to something like #eee or #ddd (at least a change barely noticeable) and she later contacted us to to thank us, so it must have had an effect on her. So it seems, for some people with limited eyesight, contrast can be too high as well.
However, I agree with the generell sentiment that in modern web design, contrast is often too low.
A lot of high contrast combinations are less accessible and even if it doesn't make the text illegible, too much contrast is going to be a strain on the eyes for most people.
Generally, WCAG AA or AAA is enough for most people and you hit that already with #555 on a white background. Something like #1a1a1a is close to the darkest I'd use in most cases.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that some people need reduced contrast to read comfortably. They are in the same boat as people who need maximum contrast because of other visual impairments, most commonly focal issues.
Why wouldn't people who need less contrast simply reduce the contrast on their monitors, though?
It seems to me as though designing for those who need low contrast excludes those who need high contrast, but not the other way around.
From your link:
> The solution for contrast sensitivity
> If you feel that your child may be suffering from this issue, the first thing to do is test some tinted acetate sheets placed over the page of text.
> Why wouldn't people who need less contrast simply reduce the contrast on their monitors, though?
Because I don't want to make everything else look worse just to lower contrast in text?
And support for low contrast doesn't mean excluding others, it can just be a setting. Like Windows has been doing for a long time with its high-contrast mode. Websites and apps are increasingly adopting dark themes, next we should push for a switch between high and lower contrast. It's just as easy from a technical standpoint. Browsers are already pretty far, letting the user set specific fonts and font sizes, and Firefox' reader mode and its options are great as well.
As far as I can tell based on what I've read, there can be a conflict between users with accessibility needs, where you may want as high contrast as possible, and typical users, where excess contrast may impair readability in some cases. The WCAG minimums are within the realm of reasonable for both sets of users though, so there isn't really an excuse not to meet those minimums.
My first job was building monitoring software used by operators of nuclear power plants. I have no citations, but they leveraged some specialized human factors research that said "don't use black". The standard in the industry is dark grey.
Can you find a citation for that statement? WCAG 2.1[0] mentions minimum contrast, but not maximum. The success criterion page itself is written in #000 on #fff. :)
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/contrast-minimum...