There is a massive benefit. People that are colorblind often find it difficult to distinguish between two different colors but easier to distinguish between two shades of gray.

Say a user sees both red and green as the same, they still may very well be able to differentiate between the specific shade of gray that represents red and the one that represents green.

It's also been part of ios since ios8 in the accessibility settings https://mcmw.abilitynet.org.uk/grayscale-iphoneipadipod-touch-ios-8 and macOS also in the accessibility settings.

In Windows 10 it can be found in the "ease of access" settings (apparently they thought that was a better term than accessibility.

@brianteeman People that are colorblind often find it difficult to distinguish between two different colors but easier to distinguish between two shades of gray

Isn't this the reason why J4 uses WCAG 2.0 - AA Colour contrasts?

Also, I haven't yet messed around with the colour settings on Atum, but in conjunction with #26440 will the user be able to replicate a monochrome look and feel using the colour swatches?

Contrasts help to see the text on a button for example.
But if you cant see the difference between red and green then you cant see the different background color which is where the grayscale comes in

Fair enough, in which case, is my second point not valid?

I think monochrome settings should be left down to the OS and monitor (if supported), not a site.

they dont need to use the color swatches as there is an option for the template which I dont see being removed in that pr

In addition it it ever gets accepted there is a pr for per user accessibility settings that also has a grayscale option

@brianteeman What I'm saying is though, why would colour blind users perform this on a per-site basis when it can be controlled at the OS level globally?

Think of it as opening HTML files manually with your prefered browser each time when you can just set your prefered browser as the default.

Not all OS can do it

If it's not native, there will be software, apps and/or monitor settings to do it.

Might as well not do anything then

Well if I were colour blind, I'd rather sort my colour settings out at a global level. Waste of time having to find the setting for every website I use. Perhaps people do that

With the exception of iOS having a grayscale option placed under 'Accessibility', I can't find any objective evidence that greyscale is a benefit for those with color blindness. Android and Windows have options for grayscale but don't place them under 'Accessibility'.

Windows calls the accessibility settings "Ease of Access" and thats where the grayscale is

I'm gonna close this. As pointed out by @brianteeman, this appears to be a common a11y feature.

I'd agree with @C-Lodder, that this feature is most likely switched on at an OS level if required so the need for such an option is still questionable. But that is probably a separate point to this issue.

imho, setting such a feature at site level makes no sense.
The reason is simple: a site can be browsed or administered by colour blind and not colour blind people.
If the feature was a parameter set per user, as we do for preferred language or editor, it would make sense.

We have a per user setting in s yet to be merged pr

PR # ?

If the feature was a parameter set per user, as we do for preferred language or editor, it would make sense.

There's a reason why big players like Microsoft, Google, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc don't have monochrome settings on their websites. Same reason why they don't have their own screenreader. Because it's either controlled at OS level or people use software that applies this globally for everything they use.

There are more lines in this issue than in the code

Tis what happens when you have pointless params. J3 seems to be calling