• 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023
  • KammicRelief@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.ml•US & Israel oppose entire world in UN vote to end Cuba blockadeEnglish
    2·
    6 hours ago

    Yes! One easy/good one to use is https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ It lets you pick two colors, and you can even use the eyedropper tool in their Color Picker box to select a color right off your screen. Then it’ll tell you the Contrast Ratio of the two selected colors. Higher is better. It will give you a pass/fail for WCAG AA and AAA (two levels of web accessibility standards). I just now checked the red and green from the linked map and it had a ratio of 1.3:1 which is a fail for both AA and AAA.

    Some websites (like Trello) give accessibility options to skip colors altogether, and use patterns (cross-hatch, polka-dot, etc.). But in general, going for a high enough contrast ratio should be good enough. I’m a web dev as well and we just run everything through one of those WCAG tools (I believe we’ve been using the WAVE browser plugin) and fix it until it passes. :) But, being the colorblind one on the team, I can often just be like “uhmm, that one ain’t gonna work.” lol.

    btw sorry I got so spicy in my initial comment. I really wanted to see the map. :P

    Edit: Another reply to my comment had a link to a more colorblind-friendly version of the map, with red and blue instead of red and green. Much clearer to my eyes. I eyedropped those two colors into that webaim checker, and I was surprised to see it also failed quite badly on the color contrast! For example you wouldn’t want red text on a blue background (unless it was a bright red and dark blue, or vice versa). But for map colors, well… I guess that goes to show that for colorblind checking you have to use a little common sense and know what the most common no-no combos are (red/green seems to be the most common). I checked the accessibility docs at my work just now and we sometimes use this site to check what a site looks like under various types of colorblindness: https://www.toptal.com/designers/colorfilter

  • KammicRelief@lemmy.worldtoPhotography@lemmy.world•had some nice clouds, so i found a barn.English
    1·
    6 months ago

    Very cool! Thanks for the details. It’s fun to hear about others’ workflows. Good call to underexpose it. A lot of the videos I’ve watched, they will bracket exposures and treat them separately… but honestly I’ve found if I shoot raw I don’t need to most of the time. Is LR pretty good at masking? I left the Adobe suite a few years ago and have been on Affinity Photo (basically the same as PS). I use a lot of luminosity masks, which I don’t remember if LR has some “smart” way to do that (e.g. “select all the bright stuff”). Anyway… nice work!

  • KammicRelief@lemmy.worldtoPhotography@lemmy.ml•Since we're doing gear now: a Dad's take on an A7III vs X-H2sEnglish
    2·
    7 months ago

    Interesting points. First, yes about the F-mount lenses! I don’t often use random old lenses, but, probably my most “successful” photo (big air quotes there) was when I needed a longer lens, which none of my “nice” ones are, so I slapped on an MF 135mm that someone had given me, and boom.

    As for facial recognition, sports stuff, focus tracking, etc. – I basically do most of my (non-casual/family/etc.) shooting on a tripod, at things that ain’t moving (or if they are, like clouds or water, I’m using an ND filter to get that motion); so, a lot of those newer bells and whistles I don’t really consider. I like lots of megapixels, low noise, a good lens, solid tripod, etc.