E-mail List Archives
Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?
From: Jared Smith
Date: Aug 23, 2010 12:27PM
- Next message: ejp10: "Re: Fw: is it a fake adobe site?, A Brief Analysis"
- Previous message: Patrick Dunphy: "Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?"
- Next message in Thread: Eyal Sela (@eyalsela): "Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?"
- Previous message in Thread: Patrick Dunphy: "Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?"
- View all messages in this Thread
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:06 PM, E.J. Zufelt wrote:
> So, in short, when a link does not use the standard underline, what is the minimal stylistic difference it must have from the non-link text on the page to maintain perceivability?
This WebAIM blog entry presents the WCAG 2.0 requirements -
http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-2-0-and-link-colors/
In short, WCAG 2.0 requires a contrast ratio of of 3:1 between
non-underlined links and surrounding text. As the article points out,
when you combine this requirement with the foreground/background
contrast requirements, the possible color combinations for the page
become fairly limited.
Also of note is that non-color designators (typically the introduction
of the underline) are required when the link is hovered with the mouse
or receives keyboard focus (a:focus, a:hover in CSS). This is a Level
A requirement.
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
- Next message: ejp10: "Re: Fw: is it a fake adobe site?, A Brief Analysis"
- Previous message: Patrick Dunphy: "Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?"
- Next message in Thread: Eyal Sela (@eyalsela): "Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?"
- Previous message in Thread: Patrick Dunphy: "Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?"
- View all messages in this Thread