- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:54:48 -0500
- To: Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-id: <9182CC32-A6C4-4B5D-BF78-FD6145394BE8@trace.wisc.edu>
this issue was just raised in public comment. If you don't see the reply there -- you will see the reply shortly. PS - G183 says more than that. It has to also be distinguishable before you point at it -- the pointing only makes it more distinguishable. so the failure and the G183 are not in conflict Gregg -------------------------------------------------------- Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. Director Trace R&D Center Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net On Mar 22, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Sorry to jump on an old thread, but I'm back in the accessibility > universe now, and this came up today. > > Specifically on link colour and distinguishing links from general > text, there's a conflict in the success & fail criteria for 1.4.1. > > The test from G183 [1] specifically says that changing the link on > mouseover/focus to include an underline or other mechanism is ok, > whereas F73 [2] says that is not sufficient. > >> From the previous discussion, it sounds like G183 should be > deprecated, as if we are talking about "people who cannot perceive > color differences" then the contrast aspect is irrelevant. > > -Alastair > > 1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G183 > 2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F73 >
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 22:55:15 UTC