- From: Marc Haunschild <haunschild@mhis.onmicrosoft.de>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 20:07:43 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I agree with Patrick. Defining a background with sufficient contrast can be done by using a solid color, a gradient or - of course also an image. These all are valid methods to get the contrast you need. I can’t see, why one approach should be better or worse than another. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Marc Haunschild www.mhis.de > On 22. Jul 2020, at 20:36, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > > On 22/07/2020 18:39, Jonathan Avila wrote: >> Hi Catherine, Failure F24 addresses situations where a color is defined for foreground but not background. That is mapped to SC 1.4.3. >> F24: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.3, 1.4.6 and 1.4.8 due to specifying foreground colors without specifying background colors or vice versa > > However...isn't that particular failure more to do with the fact that in the past, browsers had inconsistent default background colours and that users may have also customised/set their fallback foreground/background in the absence of author-defined styles? If CSS is relied on as a technology, then it's nominally a pass. WCAG doesn't account for users disabling things like images or CSS (or forcing high-contrast, or anything else) directly, no? > > P > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > > https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke > https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2020 20:08:01 UTC