- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 08:20:56 -0600
- To: <public-apa@w3.org>
- Cc: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Message-ID: <022301d147c4$4b46fa80$e1d4ef80$@deque.com>
Hi Janina, Can we add this to the agenda for this week? Thanks. JF From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 8:18 AM To: 'fantasai' <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>; 'David Carlisle' <davidc@nag.co.uk>; spec-prod@w3.org Cc: chairs@w3.org; w3c-ac-forum@w3.org; 'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats' <public-pfwg@w3.org>; 'public-low-vision-a11y-tf' <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>; 'Wayne Dick' <wayneedick@gmail.com>; 'Srinivasu Chakravarthula' <srinivasu.chakravarthula@deque.com> Subject: RE: Proposed Final Design for W3C Technical Reports style in 2016 fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] wrote: > > Fantasai, while I appreciate that you've made the link less faint, the > > color used (#C0C0C0) still fails a color-contrast test. > > ( <http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=C0C0C0,bg=FF> http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=C0C0C0,bg=FF > > FFFF) > > > > To be crystal clear, the WCAG 2.0 Recommendation only speaks of “text” > > when referencing color contrast (so for example, it does NOT speak to > > icons, etc.), however since **underlined text** is indeed recognized > > as a link, I would argue that the color contrast requirement would be > > in play here, as the underlining is part of the active text, and that > > the visual indicator should be as visible as the text it is underlining. > > It's a reasonable argument on the surface, but actually, I think the contrast > requirement for an underline isn't as stringent. Therein lies one of our problems: this has not been definitively clarified. I believe this is an open question for the Low Vision Task Force (now copied on this thread), who are addressing issues related to this user-group that were not addressed in the original WCAG 2.0 publishing time-frame. I'll gently push back on your assertion, as I believe it is the combination of text and underline - together as a visual whole - that signals to most readers that a link is indeed a link. In other words, it's not " link text ", nor is it _______, but rather, the combination of the two: link text > Unlike text, for an underline you > only need to be able to distinguish that it's there, not distinguish which of a > variety of shapes it is. Correct, the low vision user needs to distinguish that it is there. If it is too faint in color contrast, it is not perceivable. > I've tried increasing the contrast, but I run into a few problems trying to do that. > I have to balance: > * contrast with the foreground color, so that it's visible > * contrast with the text color, so that it's easy to visually filter > out the link style and focus on the paragraph text > * contrast between visited and non-visited links, so that they can > be distinguished > > One thing I could do is to swap the darker color for unvisited links, and the > lighter color (harder to see, but also less intrusive) for visited ones. Balancing all of the functional requirements you’ve listed, I’d say that this is a compromise that might work, but I am loathe to be the final arbitrator of that decision. W3C also has a mandate to be conformant to WCAG, and how we thread this particular needle will require some consensus. I will take the Action to socialize this further inside of the WAI domain, and specifically will ask the LVTF to weigh in here. > > > Suggestion: could you lighten the line weight, darken it and perhaps > > use dashes or dots instead? (see in-page links at WCAG - > <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20). > > I’m not a graphics person however, so feel free to explore other > > alternatives. Jonathan Snook’s online color contrast tool is quite > > useful > > there: <http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html> http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html > > Lightening the weight or using dashes/dots instead would allow me to follow > the letter of the WCAG rule without actually following its > spirit: lighter-weight or discontinuous lines are perceptually lighter in color, even > though the screen pixels will test at a higher contrast. > So I don't think that's actually helping real people, even though it'll help the > color-contrast checker. LVTF, do we have any research or feedback on this point that either supports or dispels? > > I can do the opposite, though: make them thicker, so that they're easier to > perceive even though the colors are the same. :) > > It would look like this: > <http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/design/w3c-restyle/2016/sample> http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/design/w3c-restyle/2016/sample This looks better *to me*, but again I’ll seek some other feedback going forward. Thanks for being patient Fantasai! :) JF > > ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2016 14:21:28 UTC