This repo is a catch-all for posting rebuttals to the very few but nevertheless misplaced, dishonest, or just bizarre rumors or falsehoods regarding current research in visual contrast and readability.

We are working toward improving visual readability of digital content—but like any large paradigm shift, there are some that actively obstruct progress and development.

We have an open public forum for discussion, comments, and questions, And we work to address them all in a timely manner. The rebuttals we present in this repo however, are directed toward misleading or false claims causing confusion.

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. Here are summaries with links to the clarifications (links lead to a separate repo).

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 APCA code, invalidating any results.

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 unsupported theories or claims. But that's not how math and vision science work together, and his assertions are neither supportable nor salient.

Why spend energy to discuss this (and risk the "Streisand Effect")? Because xi has indicated apparent ties to the obstructionist group, and xi's biased and spurious claims are being used to directly obstruct material improvements in visual accessibility. If in fact xi is associated with the obstructionists as it appears, then his statements on the subject are not motivated by science. This would explain the observable cognitive dissonance presented in the faux analysis and related corruptions of math and methods—all of which appear to be intended to confuse and not to illuminate.

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, feel free to join in the conversation.
• APC-Readability Criteria Public Working Draft of the next generation guidelines for visual accessibility and readability.

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.

The emergence of the World Wide Web created a content distribution system that effectively replaced traditional print. This fact created an obligation for supporting effective readability of digital content. The importance of this 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.

Our proactive response includes the APC-Readability Criterion currently a public working draft. This emerging standard provides solid and useful guidance for designersm 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 and references contained within.

Yes, we know the word "rebuttal" is not spelled like "buttle", it's a pun that points to a moment in film history.

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.

Contents of this repository are copyright © 2023/2024. All Rights Reserved.
_{Because this repo involves controvery, please do not fork.}
^{Please add questions or comments in the discussions area.}