pack colors, the 3.1 rule question

So apparently this is a new rule I did not know of until needing for Kingslend;

but the ratio for colors must be 3.1

is there any way to negogiate? it makes it more difficult to choose colors, and I understand some are too light, but would 2.5 be even a bit okay? a lot of the pack colors now fit that that point, or even less.

trying to get a pink color, is very unfortunate to do because how high the contrast must be as shown



i personally feel it may be a bit much and limits quite a bit.
could it even be just a bit less??

I've also had questions about this. When I applied with Yuèlóng, I was told the color needed at least a 2 on this checker: 
https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
While I'm very satisfied with Yuèlóng's green now, I do think the color expectations should be more consistent.

Unless I'm using the checker wrong, Moonspear's green has a score of 1.66- and while I understand they were made likely before the color check was implemented, I do think it is a bit odd to allow an exception for one group and not others, as Moonspear's green will also need to be read often. (I'm also not saying they need to change necessarily, don't read me wrong here heh) 

If it's about particularly the link color, I think that's a lot more understandable since it will need to be read as text more often- however the first color will still need to be read as background, for example thread titles in white text against the first color in pack forums. 

I feel like there's some general inconsistencies with judging color- not sure what my point is lol, maybe just lower the number standards a bit to make things a little more equal? um yea <3

I do think the color expectations should be marked somewhere.

Just popping in here to say that this has been added to pack creation, structure & disbanding and I only know that because I was browsing that thread earlier this morning, heh.

I do think the color expectations should be marked somewhere.

Just popping in here to say that this has been added to pack creation, structure & disbanding and I only know that because I was browsing that thread earlier this morning, heh.

I just edited my reply bc i noticed when i saw you reading the thread LOL. thanks my bad i haven't looked at it in a few days haha

i understand the necessity of making things here readable but i ALSO think it's always going to be a problem to require colors that are this high contrast because it 1) really limits your options and may discourage people from going in for pack concepts since colors will by necessity fit into a small range that can be similar to others' and 2) what is high contrast on light mode isn't necessarily going to be high contrast on dark mode.

i know the saints' original color was identified as a problem after we formed, and the color we had suggested to us as a replacement was a ~2.2 on the contrast scale. maybe as cyprin suggested something around 2.2-2.5 would be an acceptable compromise? i'm also quite sure a lot of current packs don't fit those requirements so if we were going to do this for visibility reasons it would only make sense to revise all current colors to follow the rules, which is where i think the restricted colors problem would be particularly noticeable.

I didn't even know this was a thing. 
I assume it's for readability...? Is it because some colors can be blinding, or is it something that maybe even just adding some drop shadow css to the online list can help with...? Seems pretty limiting given we've already cycled through so many colors and people try to be as unique as possible for the most part.

Juat wondering!

I added the rule sometime in the last week. Older packs are grandfathered in and do not need to change their colors; we would have notified them if they needed to. It was not consistently enforced in the past, which is my fault!

3.0 is the new standard because it's really, really hard to read lower numbers. I know it does inhibit the color range a bit, but I promise I'm not doing it to stomp on fun. I just want everybody (including myself) to be able to read everything on the board.

I added the rule sometime in the last week. Older packs are grandfathered in and do not need to change their colors; we would have notified them if they needed to. It was not consistently enforced in the past, which is my fault!

Question then, I got a pack concept greenlit with its existing colors just earlier this month. Obviously the pack doesn't exist yet but it is greenlit with its existing colors; should I change them if they were below the standard? Or is the concept still valid with the colors it got accepted with?

the concept of older colors being grandfathered in is something i don't get. if this change is for readability and was put into place because pack names were unreadable, shouldn't all things that are unreadable be changed? in theory it makes sense to let older packs abide by previous rules, but i don't think that illegibility is something that is justified as a holdover because it directly impacts everyone reading.

if those are justified in remaining lower contrast there's no reason that new packs aren't also justified in being lower contrast. unless there's something i'm missing here.

the concept of older colors being grandfathered in is something i don't get. if this change is for readability and was put into place because pack names were unreadable, shouldn't all things that are unreadable be changed? in theory it makes sense to let older packs abide by previous rules, but i don't think that illegibility is something that is justified as a holdover because it directly impacts everyone reading.

if those are justified in remaining lower contrast there's no reason that new packs aren't also justified in being lower contrast. unless there's something i'm missing here.

Also seconding this!

Any new packs that are set up will need to have the 3.0+ contrast.

We would eventually like to update *all* the pack colors for the sake of readability, but that requires generating a lot of new images and updating those colors in a lot of different places. I guess I should have said they are grandfathered in "for now" because checking and updating them is a large task that I'm not ready to take on.

In fact, it may be a good idea for existing PMs to start looking for new colors if their current ones do not meet the 3.0 standard. We aren't updating them right this second, but it will *eventually* need to be done.

Can there be a formal announcement about this change? I had no idea it was a thing before spotting this thread, and it feels kind of weird having an enforceable rule about colours added without any acknowledgment, especially if existing PMs are going to have to change their pack colours eventually to comply.

It will be made a formal announcement once we have a plan in place to change the existing packs. It wasn't announced formally because people tend to expect things to happen right away when we do announce something, but... I guess the cat's outta the bag?

if enough people do not like this change, is it possible to reverse it??
or simply turn it to 2.5 instead?

i understand why, but it does limit extremely on multiple packs on their colors, and personally do not like the new rule.

edit;;
i personally also believe this decision should've been discussed with the community as the color change does effect majority of the packs, including many long-standing ones.

3.0 is the new standard because it's really, really hard to read lower numbers. I know it does inhibit the color range a bit, but I promise I'm not doing it to stomp on fun. I just want everybody (including myself) to be able to read everything on the board.

TYSM for this! There are a lot of high-contrast colours that are hard to read against a white background, so I for one really appreciate the standardization. Its gonna be a lot of extra work but if it makes readability better that's awesome!

i personally also believe this decision should've been discussed with the community as the color change does effect majority of the packs, including many long-standing ones.

i agree with this 100% and I think now's a great time to start a discussion.

I can understand visibility being a problem, but I think adding a drop shadow (as rachel suggested) to things like thread titles and the who's online list would be a much better option.

I just.. don't see a point in changing the colors? People don't go to pack threads to focus on the titles or links, they go to read the posts which aren't affected by pack colors at all. And I can see similar pack colors being a problem in the future.

I can understand visibility being a problem, but I think adding a drop shadow (as rachel suggested) to things like thread titles and the who's online list would be a much better option.

I second (third?) the drop shadow idea instead of changing the color rules.

Does this have to do with pack link/text colors, the pack fade image below usernames, or both?

@Lilitu
both!
colors in general are going to change

I think drop shadow on thread titles and links would make it even harder to read, tbh. Just my opinion, not rooted in actually trying it out, just what I've observed elsewhere.

I just.. don't see a point in changing the colors? People don't go to pack threads to focus on the titles or links, they go to read the posts which aren't affected by pack colors at all. And I can see similar pack colors being a problem in the future.

TBH I avoid any pack with too-hard-to-read colours, as it effects the thread links on their forum. I can't read WBS links very well because I use Dark Mode on most of my toons, same as how I struggle with the Saints yellow-on-white if I'm on certain accounts. That's just my experience and obviously not everyone has the same issues with colours. As for "similar colours being a problem" - who cares? There are finite colours so there are bound to be repeats.

As for "similar colours being a problem" - who cares? There are finite colours so there are bound to be repeats.

yes, I know. I brought this up because I recall people having a problem w a pledged pack’s colors being similar to a different pack’s colors (but I may be remembering that wrong). If that was a problem to people before, I can see it being a problem again.

Accessibility/site readability has always been a requirement for pack colors, and if pack colors were too bright or unsuitable this was communicated during the pack-app process, or, once the pack was ready to be set up. I had Malkaria's (2016) original colors rejected and had to adjust for saturation. I believe Triva Mountain's also had to be fixed, though that pack never officially formed.

The CMs have been using a website for the last two+ years to make things objective as possible, the metric was +2.0 and this has been consistently enforced since my first ACM term which was in 2018. (MSP was formed before this rule was in place.)

The rule was posted for transparency recently, since a lot of pack applications lately have applied with colors that are unreadable. With dark mode now, we're finding that the previous 2.0+ is just not feasible. There are some pack colors that do meet our old requirements that are plain unreadable in dark mode, and sometimes in light mode too.  

I hope that clears some confusion up. <3

So another question to confirm -- do colors need to hit 3 to 1 for both dark and light mode? If so, can we get the hex codes in here for both backgrounds? I think light, at least, isn't quite #FFFFFF but a little darker.

Hm, good point about dark mode. Light mode is completely white (#FFFFFF) and dark mode is #444444.

Again, sorry for all the confusion. We are still working this out to make the reading experience better for everyone. :)