As I said, I knew I would get in trouble ;-) FWIW, I have a vision problem and have difficulty seeing things that have low contrast. In fact, I use a 24 point font and obsess with colours because if I don't, I get ocular migraines (things that are difficult to read literally make me go blind). So, I'm not insensitive to your argument.

Saying that 56.1% fails WCAG AAA is not a terribly convincing argument, because that is the highest level of accessibility. If you want to have a convincing argument, then why not point out that it also fails to meet the 3:1 contrast ratio of the lowest recommended contrast level for people with healthy vision?

Like I said, I'm not against helping web designers make accessible web pages, but if you literally can't see something with a 56% contrast ratio, then it's because your device is set up improperly (or you have vision problems that you already know about). The frustrating thing for me is that people tolerate these completely broken by default systems and complain to web developers that they don't have a 7:1 contrast ratio in their web pages.

What that means is that for people like me, I have to spend my life configuring my blasted machine for situations where colour contrasts are lower due to design constraints (rather than trendy, bone headed decisions). I want a machine I can use every day and I specifically don't care if some random blog writer decides to make their content unavailable to me.

So I will repeat: If you can not see that text, fix your computer and complain to whoever set it up. If you also want to help the web designer make accessible choices, then at least tell them what they should be aiming for rather than complaining that the text is "white on white", which is completely untrue.

Sorry for the rant, but it's a bit of big deal for me.