Do those articles use scientific evidence? Do they measure anything quantitative or is it just a bunch of opinion.
UX poses as a scientific field when really there is little evidence based research and it’s all just technical procedure and big words. Technical procedures are illusory they make you think it’s legit with a bunch of rules but to be scientific you need evidence. As technical as the rules are, a lot of it is made up bs.
UX design is one of those bs concepts that litter the world and poses as legitimate. It’s like the food pyramid from the USDA that says refined carbs are the most important part of every meal.
If the debate is on how much contrast then run some science. Instead UX just debates and as a result the entire field is made up conjecture.
Yes, the articles are scientific.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01698...
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929041000166...
https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2121593
Though this lacks citations and evidence, it's by a generally accepted expert and authority in the field:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/low-contrast/
I'm really struggling to understand the connections you're drawing to food.
It’s ok if you’re struggling. As long as you are humble enough to admit it.
The food pyramid is based off of cherry picked data and biased experiments influenced the food industry. This is similar to your cherry picked data.
Your data measures low contrast vs high contrast but really you need to measure high contrast vs. blurred background.
Blurred background is unpredictable contrast, sometimes low, sometimes high. Plus the motion behind it would be distracting. You can see the impact on the static screenshot in the OP where the text is harder to read over the light part of the blurred background than the dark part of the blurred background.