> > Coverage == opacity (aka alpha). It is more than plausible, it > > is justifiable. > > And the justification is?
Let there be background light shining through the uncovered part or the pixel! In whatever the wavelength is there in the background, may I add. Let the covered part shine with its own spectrum. :) We shall mix them proportionally without altering the spectrums! Ta-da-da-dam! > That is going to involve some kind of > processing/interpretation by the visual system since the stimulus is > different. I know, the color perception is mysterious, but I am only concerned with passing the correct signal to the monitor pixels, not beyond. :) There are so many colorblind people too. What helps them is appropriate color palette -- *not* opacity, *not* alpha, *not* coverage. > It is also well known that using the same alpha map, white text on black > background does not create the same perception as black text on white > background. I beg to differ again. This is not about opacity, or alpha, or coverage. It is actually about gamma correction and the choice of colors. I bet you would love to play with our ftstring tool of freetype-demos. It lets you play with gamma and offers a set of different color combinations. You'll be amazed how much gamma matters.
