Adding hwi@ and rolfe@ for a11y.

And bhfong@google.com for MD a11y.

The omnibox chip and security glyphs color were validated by accessibility. We are using a color that prevents some user from not seeing them at all, the previous color wasn't passing the minimum requirement for contrast ratio.

We do not rely on color for security differentiation but on the glyph itself, therefore seeing is grey shouldn't impact the appreciation of the webpage security.

Huh, the bright green color used today (in Chrome 49 stable) doesn't have a high enough contrast ratio for some users?

Or do you mean you tried a different color earlier in the MD redesign and that one wasn't contrast-y enough?

In existing Chrome we use both iconography (lock, chip) and color to indicate secure pages. I'm just bummed I'm losing the color cue with MD.

Sounds like this is working as intending. :-(

The one you are seeing today on stable is not updated to MD. We have updated the glyphs on mobile 2 years ago, we are only catching up now on desktop.

The current bright green doesn't meet standard. You can consider that sort of ok because its a glyph but I am unifying the color scheme for the secure text to match the secured glyph.

So we went from a bright green (#1AC222 on glyph + text on mobile and #00A40A for text on desktop) scoring a very low 2.4 on contrast test to a dark green (#0B8043 on glyphs + text ) scoring a 5 on the contrast test. This color will hit stable 50 in Chrome OS.

I'm sorry you are losing the color cue but the current color scheme corrects the accessibility issues we had before while carrying a more consistent color scheme throughout both the glyph and the texts. I hope that the future omnibox glyph simplification will make the difference between a secured and non secured website even clearer. 

Can we consider enlarging the chip a little?  Just having a slightly bigger chip, font, and glyph would be easier to read, call out the glyph more, and maybe make the color easier to determine.

I know you've said know to this repeatedly Sebastien, but it really does still seem too small, we've gotten some feedback to that effect from the public, and if it affects this issue as well that would be another reason to try this.

Please create a separate bug for your request, so that any discussion on it goes there and not here (otherwise things are going to get messy).

#7 - Chip will be entirely changed in the update following the glyph change. 
The bounds will be removed in favor of a subtle separator. The certification text will be brought to the same size as the URL.

[pkasting@ - I don't want to start up the thread again on this bug about how the chip font is small, and sgabriel@ says things are changing completely, but I did want to say that I just sat down to implement the current spec on the Mac and man, the font really is small.]

AFAICT this is basically WontFix based on comment 6, and any fixes we do here will be in the nature of completely changing the UI per comment 9.