RE: is any WCAG criteria to account both default and Dark mode for content

With respect, Patrick, I am not implying that clients are somehow being defrauded by auditors or that auditors who don't go above and beyond are slackers.

that, after 20+ years, there is no agreement or specification for dark/high contrast modes and how they can be used by designers and developers to make accessible user interfaces is an industry problem.

It is the information technology industry that builds inaccessible digital products and services. It is companies that decide legal protections are a higher priority than the rights of people with disability. 

And, despite the best efforts of the accessibility community and supporters,  WCAG is a product of this well-established  hegemony.

Personally, auditing according to the letter of WCAG has always been a case of using language persuasively to arrive at an accessible outcome, so I argue (mostly successfully) that dark mode/high contrast  is covered by the "accessibility features of user agents and operating systems" clause in Conformance Requirement 4.

Just like in courts of law, some days it's the quick wittedness of the attorney who wins the day rather than the law as such.

Auditors have a specification at their disposal that lacks any mention of technologies and their implementations that have been in the wild for some time that clearly have a negative impact on users. 

The deficiency is not with how experienced auditors use their judgement as to how to interpret or apply WCAG - that would imply that there is one correct way which would be a courageous assertion to make.

It is with the specification itself and the industry that shapes it.





-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:46 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: is any WCAG criteria to account both default and Dark mode for content

On 11/02/2023 23:33, Adam Cooper wrote:
> Ironic, really, that a client may be paying dearly and in good faith 
> for something that doesn’t make their websites accessible for all 
> users and for which there is likely a simple solution.

I strongly resent the implication here (and in Guy's points) that we as auditors hired explicitly to do a strict WCAG compliance assessment (often with the explicit end goal from the client to get an ACR) are somehow shortchanging and defrauding our clients...

If *you* want to go above and beyond what you're being hired by your client to you ... you do you, boo. Implying that this is what we all
*should* do and that those that don't are just not showing enough commitment to Sparkle Motion is...well, it's an opinion, for sure.

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 Sunday, 12 February 2023 01:36:21 UTC