- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:14:56 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 6:39 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > # For accessibility purposes, user agents may offer manual > # controls allowing the user to switch between the 3 levels > # of independently of the ambient light level, as high > # contrast or low contrast styles may be more suitable for > # users with visual disabilities. > # > # Using this media feature for accessibility purposes > # overlaps a lot with the high-contrast media feature > # proposed by Microsoft. Can we adjust this so that it > # covers all use cases for both, or somehow modify them > # to work in an orthogonal, rather than overlapping, fashion? > > So, I don't think we should mix up accessibility and light-level. > Responses to light-level can involve contrast but also background/ > foreground swaps: e.g. I might go with a light-on-dark scheme in > dim lighting to avoid disrupting low-light vision, but not > necessarily reduce the contrast. > > If we want to present contrast preferences, that should be > explicit. We can show examples where someone who is drawing > up a low-contrast scheme for dim lighting *also* applies that > for people with a contrast preference, but they shouldn't be > tied together. > > So I'd remove this issue and work on addressing the need for > contrast or foreground/background preferences. We don't generally care about groups which need *less* a11y help, so "reducing contrast" isn't really a use-case in the first place. ^_^ On the other hand, increasing contrast for "light-level: washed" is a good idea, *and* it can help with a11y that wants high-contrast. (It also generally means going with dark-on-light, which is better for low-sighted users too.) So, like Florian, I favor mixing in a11y concerns to functional concerns when they overlap in a reasonable manner, as they increase the chance that they'll actually be addressed by authors. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 01:15:45 UTC