- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:01:39 -0400
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- CC: "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP2002AB612CFEE8D57AFB788FE3F0@phx.gbl>
Agree... If we are talking about distinguishing link text from static text, the technique basically says "if you provide sufficient contrast with the background and sufficient contrast between the link and the static, and do some hover things you can get an exemption from using color alone on page load because you have sufficient contrast a person who is color blind will most likely be able to distinguish the link text from the contrast change." There was strong pressure to allow for the current practice of not underlining links in blocks of text. Personally, I'm fine with ditching it. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > But as said on the GutHub issue just now: fundamentally, this still goes > against the idea of 1.4.1 ... you're still actually just using color to > differentiate links from non-link text. Whether the contrast is high or not > makes little difference, it's still a change in color, no? > https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html > I don't see anything in the wording there to suggest that it's about using > colors with a strong enough contrast...it quite unequivocally states > "providing the information conveyed with color through another visual means > ensures users who cannot see color can still perceive the information" > > P > > On 11/07/2016 15:59, David MacDonald wrote: > >> I believe G183 requires BOTH the link text AND the static text to have >> minimum 4.5:1 with the background... BUT 3:1 with each other. >> >> Cheers, >> David MacDonald >> >> >> >> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >> >> Tel: 613.235.4902 >> >> LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >> >> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> >> >> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >> >> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >> >> >> >> / Adapting the web to *all* users/ >> >> / Including those with disabilities/ >> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy >> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Patrick H. Lauke >> <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> FWIW I've filed an issue in WCAG's github repo about this: >> >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/201 >> >> Thoughts/support there welcome. >> >> P >> >> >> On 10/07/2016 17:18, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: >> >> On 10/07/2016 17:03, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >> >> Great point Patrick >> >> There are devices that do have HOVER (detect finger near >> screen) — but >> not all devices do - and we can’t assume that they all will >> any time >> soon (or perhaps not all ever). >> >> So great reminder on this. >> >> >> So we good with this idea of, first of all, patching G183 to >> exclude >> touchscreen interfaces (and any other interfaces that lack >> hover/focus)? >> Should we take it straight to the WCAG WG, or work on something >> here >> first before submitting a change proposal? >> >> In short, I'd say we should add a note to G183 saying >> that it does NOT >> apply to touchscreen input (without AT), since there's >> generally no >> concept of hover for touchscreen devices, and that focus >> is applied >> only after the user initiated an interaction/activation. >> >> >> P >> >> >> >> -- >> Patrick H. Lauke >> >> www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk> | >> https://github.com/patrickhlauke >> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com >> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >> >> >> >> > > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke > > >
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 16:03:01 UTC