Hello all,
"Fwiw, the styles do add a background (and thicken the underline)
on :focus and :hover.
"
I complete appreciate such an approach. As an user with Low Vision, I would
highly recommend, underline (or any styling for links) do have sufficient
contrast of color. In fact, either underline or any styling would be
helpful more to users of low vision and cognitive.
Thanks,
Srini
Best regards,
*Srinivasu Chakravarthula*
Sr. Accessibility Consultant, *Deque* <http://deque.com>
Hand phone: +91 709 380 3855
Deque University <http://dequeuniversity.com> | Follow me on Twitter
<http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu> | Connect on LinkedIn
<http://linkedin.com/in/srinivasuc> | About Me <http://about.me/srinivasuc>
Technology is a gift to everyone; let's create inclusive digital experience
On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:22 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:
> On 01/05/2016 09:43 AM, Jonathan Avila wrote:
>
>> ØI'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_
>>
>> This is also something I’ve always had heartburn over as well. That is
>> sometimes meaning is communicated not by color itself
>> but by the difference in luminosity. Technique G183 for links indicate
>> that links must be indicated differently on
>> focus/hover from the surrounding text – but in theory this could be met
>> simply by a focus rectangle by meeting SC 2.4.7 (if A
>> and AA are applicable).
>>
>> A similar issue applies to change in background color on list items, page
>> tabs, etc. that is focus and selection indication
>> can be met by changing the background and thus communicate focus or
>> selected state by the change in luminosity. This change
>> in luminosity may not be in the text but may be in the background. In
>> these cases SC 1.4.3 as written would not apply. It’s
>> unclear if SC 1.4.1 would apply in this case as it’s not color but the
>> difference in luminosity. Technique G183 is mapped to
>> SC 1.4.1 and not SC 1.4.3 – which makes me think SC 1.4.1 might be
>> broader than just color but that’s not how it’s written.
>>
>
> Fwiw, the styles do add a background (and thicken the underline)
> on :focus and :hover.
>
> ~fantasai
>