> I can agree with that half-way: as long as the author has not modified the background, then yes, the native foreground is a User Agent problem.
As I’ve said, that virtually never happens because people set the background on the page, without thinking about the individual links on the page. Even when setting the background to the same as the default (in most cases white), presumably that counts as setting it?
> Even in the extreme edge-case of a style sheet with body {background-color: #FFF;}, yet still allowing the native focus color…
This is not an ‘edge’ case at all, in just the sample we looked at it affects Github, WAI, Adobe, & Facebook. Not for all links, but some. (All links on the WAI site I think, we only looked at the main nav in the examples, but I think the content links fail on Mac with this interpretation.)
> in that instance to remain unstyled, is a conscious [sic] decision to stay with defaults that are known to be inaccessible
Especially in big teams, people working on components are often not the same people who set the background of the page. Also, if you set the page to white, suddenly you would fail even though it is the same as the browser default!
As Eric mentioned, the default Mac focus styles are much more obvious to most people in most cases, mainly because they are thicker. (See example 17<https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/non-text-contrast.html>, there are 5 images from different browsers under ‘focus’, and the most obvious one to me is the 4th, at 1.7:1.)
Github (and others) even copy that style manually because people think/assume it is a good setting.
Cheers,
-Alastair
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2018 21:39:15 UTC