Color-contrast fixes

Color-contrast fixing is bringing the brightness ratio of text and background (and important icons/borders) to WCAG requirements (usually 4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text and non-text UI): we find elements with insufficient contrast and choose values that pass the norm while fitting the design. Honestly about coverage, this matters: contrast is ONE of the accessibility criteria, not all of accessibility. It is critical for low-vision users, people with color blindness and for reading in bright light, but by itself it does not make the site accessible (there are also keyboard, screen readers, etc.). Honestly about brand/design, this is a key trade-off: some brand colors do not pass on contrast, and they will have to be adjusted (e.g. made darker) — we propose options as close to the brand as possible and AGREE the changes with you, rather than breaking the identity silently. Sometimes contrast is solved not by changing a brand color but by background/outline/shadow — we look for the least painful path. Honestly about color as the only carrier: separately we check whether meaning is conveyed ONLY by color (e.g. 'red = error') — that is a barrier for color-blind users, we add a duplicate cue (icon/text). Honestly about volume: the price depends on the number of problematic elements/states. Honestly about the effect: better readability for everyone, but we do not guarantee direct sales growth. Honestly about access: access to the styles/design is needed. An important boundary: this is contrast; a full audit is 803, dark/high-contrast themes are 825. Picture this: instead of 'pale text invisible to low-vision users and in sunlight' — content readable by everyone. The base price starts from 12,000 ₽ (depends on the number of elements).

• Pale text is invisible to low-vision users and in bright light.
• Meaning is conveyed only by color — a barrier for color-blind users.
• Brand colors do not pass on contrast, but it is 'scary' to change them.
• Buttons/links/icons blend into the background.

• Finding elements with insufficient contrast
• Choosing values that pass WCAG and are close to the brand
• Agreeing brand-color changes with you (without silent breaking)
• Alternatives without color change (background/outline/shadow) where possible
• Checking 'meaning not by color only' (duplicate with icon/text)
• Indicating boundaries (contrast — one criterion, not all of accessibility)
• Verification on real screens/states
• Handover and review with you

• Text and elements readable with low vision and color blindness
• Content visible in bright light and on different screens
• The brand is preserved as much as possible (changes agreed)
• The contrast criterion is closed (full accessibility — separate)

• We find elements and states problematic on contrast; collect access
• We choose values for WCAG and the brand, agree disputed ones with you
• We verify on screens, review boundaries with you

• Will we have to change our brand colors?

  Possibly, partially — and honestly: some brand colors do not pass on contrast. But we do not break the identity silently: we propose options as close to the brand as possible (a bit darker/more saturated), and where possible we solve contrast with background, outline or shadow without changing the color. We always agree disputed changes with you.

• Is contrast = an accessible site?

  No, it is one of the important criteria, not all of accessibility. Contrast is critical for low-vision and color-blind users, but the site must also work from the keyboard (806) and with screen readers (805). Honestly: fixing contrast closes its part, not makes the site accessible as a whole.

• What if our meaning is shown by color (red = error)?

  That is a separate barrier for color-blind users, and we check it. Conveying meaning ONLY by color is not allowed — we add a duplicate cue: an icon, text or label. That way the information is clear to those who do not distinguish colors too. This is part of honest work on contrast and color.