- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <charles@munat.com>
- cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think you have correctly interpreted the requirements on links. I would recommend against the practice of removing some visually distinct characteristic, as being at least beneficial for people with cognitive disabilities. I would suggest that even using style sheets a low-contrast combination is not a good idea. It depends on how low the contrast is, of course. However the case that you are making would be supported by the fact that providing an accesible alternative is acceptable, if not recommended practise. Using technologies such as style sheets means that you are indded providing an accessible alternative, since they can be turned of or overridden. Charles McCN (which menas there are two opinions. I think it would take a few more before we could be talking about consensus...) On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Charles F. Munat wrote: Priority 2.1 states "Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup." If I use a stylesheet to set "text-decoration: none" for links, does this violate Priority 2.1? At first glance, it would seem that the links are now distinguished only by text color; however, virtually every browser I know of has some way to identify links when they are in focus or mouseovered. By this I conclude that links are conveyed by markup and the text-color is an additional clue, not necessarily the primary clue. Therefore, I conclude that it would be okay on a link to do so, though not, perhaps, on other text. Priority 2.2 deals with having sufficient contrast between foreground and background. If a low-contrast combination is achieved via stylesheet (and therefore overrideable), would it still violate Priority 2.2? My feeling is that effects achieved with stylesheets should be less restricted so long as the page is understandable with the stylesheet turned off. Otherwise, Priority 2.2 would seem to rule out many artistic effects. What is the consensus on this? Thanks, Charles F. Munat --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Friday, 23 July 1999 10:41:27 UTC