accessible-color-and-contrast

name	accessible-color-and-contrast
description	Use when verifying or fixing text, UI, focus, border, status, or data colours for contrast and colour-vision accessibility. Unlike color-system-and-palette, this is the focused WCAG/APCA and non-colour-cue gate, not palette creation.
metadata	{"portable":true,"category":"02-color-brand-and-visual-identity","compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]}

Accessible Color And Contrast

Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com.

Use When

• A palette, theme, or token set is being finalised and every foreground/background pair must be proven to clear WCAG 2.2 contrast before it ships (text, icons, borders, focus rings, charts).
• You are choosing or fixing status colours (success / warning / error / info), data-series colours, links, or any colour that carries meaning — and it must survive colour-blindness.
• Auditing or refreshing an existing artifact's colours for accessibility, or resolving a Lighthouse / axe contrast failure, or a "users can't tell the red from the green" report.
• Picking a focus indicator, disabled-state, or placeholder colour where "looks faint" is not enough — it must measure ≥ 3:1 against its surround.

Do Not Use When

• You are choosing the base palette / brand hue / tonal ramp from scratch — start at 02-color-brand-and-visual-identity/color-system-and-palette (it already runs the contrast gate); come here to harden, certify, and colour-blind-proof what it produced.
• The accessibility issue is keyboard, ARIA, target size, or screen-reader — that is 00-cross-cutting-ops-qa-a11y/accessibility-wcag-2-2-compliance. (Contrast lives here; the rest of WCAG lives there. They co-activate.)
• The work is categorical/sequential chart encoding strategy — bring the colour-blind-safe ramps from here, then hand the encoding to the data-viz group.

Required Inputs

Input	Supplied by	Required?	Why
Colour pairs with semantic roles	Palette or implementation	yes	Defines what must be tested
Text sizes, weights, states, and backgrounds	UI/design source	yes	Selects the threshold
Target WCAG level and supported modes	Accessibility owner	yes	Establishes acceptance

• The candidate colours as measurable values (hex, or OKLCH/sRGB) — not names. "Brand blue" is not checkable; #2563EB is.
• For every colour: the exact background(s) it sits on, the text size and weight (so you apply the right threshold), and whether the colour encodes meaning (status, data series, link).
• The target conformance level (AA is the Chwezi floor; AAA where feasible — doctrine/references/wcag-2.2-criteria.md) and whether dark mode must also be certified.

Workflow

1. Design with APCA, certify with WCAG — keep the two jobs separate. Use APCA (the perceptual algorithm in the WCAG 3.0 draft) while tuning, because it tracks real legibility across light and dark far better than the 2.x ratio, which over-passes light-on-dark and can fail perfectly readable pairs. Then run the WCAG 2.2 ratio as the conformance gate — it is what you legally and contractually certify against (doctrine/references/wcag-2.2-criteria.md §Contrast method note). See references/apca-vs-wcag.md.

2. Apply the right threshold to each pair — these are floors, not targets. Body / small text ≥ 4.5:1; large text (≥ 24px, or ≥ 18.66px / 14pt bold) ≥ 3:1; meaningful UI components, icons, borders that convey state, and focus rings ≥ 3:1 (WCAG 2.2 SC 1.4.3 and 1.4.11, per doctrine/references/wcag-2.2-criteria.md). Aim past the floor (AAA is 7:1 / 4.5:1) so a later tint tweak doesn't drop you below. Disabled controls are exempt from 1.4.3 — but exempt is not invisible; keep them perceivable.

3. Measure every pair and record it — no eyeballing. Build the foreground×background matrix, compute the ratio for each, mark PASS/FAIL against the threshold from step 2, and keep the table as the contrast evidence (it ships with the palette). Any FAIL is rejected: retune the ramp step (darken text, deepen the surface, raise chroma on the accent) and re-measure until it passes. "It looks fine" is not a measurement. See examples/contrast-checked-palette.md.

4. Never encode meaning by hue alone — pair colour with a second cue. ~8% of men (and ~0.5% of women) have a colour-vision deficiency, so red-vs-green status, "the blue line vs the green line," or a red asterisk as the only signal fails them (WCAG 1.4.1 Use of Colour). Always add a redundant non-colour cue: an icon (✓ ⚠ ✕ ℹ), a text label, a shape, a pattern/dash style, or position. Colour becomes the accelerator, never the sole carrier. See references/colorblind-safe-palettes.md.

5. Choose colour-blind-safe colours for anything that carries meaning. Status sets and data series must stay distinguishable under deuteranopia, protanopia, and tritanopia. Separate hues by more than hue — also by lightness and chroma — and avoid the classic traps: pure red↔green, and teal↔grey / blue↔purple for tritanopes. Prefer a vetted safe ramp (Okabe–Ito, IBM, Viridis for sequential) and simulate before shipping. references/colorblind-safe-palettes.md gives ready ramps and the simulation step.

6. Treat dark mode as a second certification, not a freebie. Passing in light mode does not imply passing in dark. Re-run APCA design + the WCAG gate (steps 1–3) on the dark roles independently; accents usually need lightening and slight desaturation to hold 3:1 / 4.5:1 on a near-dark surface. (Full dark-mode remapping lives in 02-color-brand-and-visual-identity/dark-mode-and-theming; the contrast proof lives here.)

7. Don't over-contrast either. #000 on #fff (≈ 21:1) vibrates and haloes — high ratio is not the goal, legibility is. APCA flags this where the WCAG ratio cannot. Use a near-black carrying a trace of brand hue on a slightly off-white surface; verify it still clears 4.5:1.

8. State the result and hand off. Output the certified pairs (with ratios), the non-colour cue paired to each meaningful colour, the colour-blind-safe status/series set, and the light + dark verdicts. Note the conformance level reached (AA / AAA per pair).

Anti-Patterns

• Certifying against APCA, or designing against the bare WCAG ratio — the two tools have opposite jobs (design vs certify). Reversing them ships pairs that test green but read badly, or rejects pairs that are genuinely fine (references/apca-vs-wcag.md).
• Red/green (or any hue-only) status, links distinguished from body by colour alone, required fields marked only by a red asterisk — anything where removing colour removes the meaning.
• Eyeballing contrast, or treating 4.5:1 as a number to barely clear rather than a floor to clear comfortably. Shipping a palette with no recorded contrast table.
• #000 on #fff, or chasing the highest possible ratio as if more is always better.
• Assuming dark mode inherits light-mode passes; using full-chroma accents on near-black.
• Justifying a status palette because "a generator suggested it" — accessibility traces to the perceptual evidence and the WCAG/APCA methods, not to a tool's default (doctrine/design-doctrine.md §2, the sourcing-authority asymmetry rule).

Outputs

Output	Consumer	Evidence / acceptance
Contrast matrix	Designer and engineer	Pair, role, state, ratio, APCA value, and verdict
Colour-vision findings	Product and QA	Simulations plus redundant-cue evidence
Colour accessibility verdict	Release owner	PASS, CONDITIONAL, or BLOCKED by criterion

Quality Standards

• Design for perceptual legibility with APCA, then certify applicable WCAG 2.2 ratios.
• Test every state and theme/background combination, not swatches in isolation.
• Block release when essential meaning depends on hue alone or a required pair fails.

Decision Rules

Condition	Decision	Wrong-choice failure
Normal text is below large-text threshold	Require at least 4.5:1 for AA	Body copy becomes illegible
Large text or non-text UI component	Require at least 3:1 where applicable	Controls or boundaries disappear
Status colours collide under CVD simulation	Add shape, icon, text, or pattern and adjust	Meaning is lost for colour-blind users
APCA and WCAG advice differ	Improve design but certify with WCAG	Draft method is misrepresented as certification

Capability Contract

Read and colour calculation are required. Review defaults to read-only; editing requires remediation authority. Do not claim legal compliance beyond measured evidence and scope.

Degraded Mode

Without a trusted calculator or rendered states, provide a conditional matrix and manual test plan, marking ratios unverified. Without exact colours and contexts, stop the verdict.

• A foreground×background contrast matrix with measured ratios and PASS/FAIL per WCAG 2.2 threshold, for light and (where required) dark.
• A colour-blind-safe status/series set, each meaningful colour paired with a stated non-colour cue, plus the simulation note (deutan/protan/tritan).
• The conformance verdict (AA floor met; AAA where reached) and any retunes made to get there.

Examples

• examples/contrast-checked-palette.md — a real, named palette with the full pair-by-pair contrast matrix (every foreground/background ratio + PASS/FAIL), the colour-blind-safe status set with its non-colour cues, and the dark-mode re-certification. A worked artifact, not lorem.

References

• doctrine/references/wcag-2.2-criteria.md — the contrast floors (1.4.3 / 1.4.11), the "design with APCA, certify with WCAG" method note, and the AA-is-the-floor rule.
• doctrine/design-doctrine.md — Mission §0 (authored, defensible choices over convergent defaults) and Anti-Slop Charter §2 (the sourcing-authority asymmetry rule: methods and perceptual evidence are authority; a tool's default is not).
• references/apca-vs-wcag.md — when to use each, why, and the certification boundary.
• references/colorblind-safe-palettes.md — vetted safe ramps, the three CVD types, and the non-colour-cue rule (WCAG 1.4.1 Use of Colour).
• Human authority (named for provenance, not citable in-repo): Okabe & Ito colour-blind-safe palette; IBM Design colour-blind-safe set; Viridis (Smith & van der Walt) for sequential data; WCAG 2.2 SC 1.4.1 / 1.4.3 / 1.4.11; APCA (Somers, in the WCAG 3.0 draft).