Re: Non-text content loophole

On 23/11/2023 13:05, Ms J wrote:
> Hello
> 
> Sometimes authors use css background-color to create an image conveying 
> information - like a styled div as the check mark for a radio button. 
> This means background colours can't be customised as you can't tell when 
> the checkbox is checked or not. CSS ::content and background-images fail 
> A. However, this seems like it doesn't fail at all? The information is 
> programmatically determinable for screen reader users as the input is 
> there 'behind the scenes'. It's just that low vision users can't change 
> background colours.
> 
> This also happens with focus indicators a lot where the default one is 
> disabled but the custom one uses background-colors. I feel like there 
> should be a fail for conveying visual information with background-colors 
> alone. What is the general thought on this?

You're right in your assessment that WCAG does not cover scenarios where 
a user may have changed things (e.g. added user styles that modify the 
site's CSS, or switched into forced colours/high contrast modes).

It's something that future versions of WCAG may try to tackle, but 
because it's difficult to explicitly pinpoint exact do's and don't's (as 
users may potentially change all sorts of aspects of a site's 
presentation; even high contrast/forced colours aren't necessarily 
standardised in how they modify things), and also to determine at which 
point site authors are responsible for foreseeing any possible changes a 
user may make, I'd hazard a guess that it will be difficult.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2023 14:10:31 UTC