WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Minimal style needed to make links accessible?

for

From: Dan Conley
Date: Aug 25, 2010 7:00AM

I think Jared already linked this, but Webaim has a tool:

http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

Dan Conley
Information Specialist
Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange (CIRRIE)
University at Buffalo, Health Sciences Library B6
Phone: (716) 829-5728
<EMAIL REMOVED>
http://cirrie.buffalo.edu


On 8/25/2010 8:57 AM, Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> You should be able to use the Jucy Studio contrast analyzer to determine
> the difference between link and non-link text. The formula that the
> contrast analyzer uses isn't necessarily specific to foreground and
> background colours. The formula basically determines the luminosity
> index of colours and then calculates the ratio between the two colours.
>
> The part I am less certain about is using the success criteria for the
> colour contrast between foreground/background colours to determine if
> there is enough contrast between link and non-link text. Since I don't
> really have a better idea to offer, I guess it will do.
>
> My difficulty with applying the foreground/background contrast ratios to
> link/non-link text is that I am uncertain that the ratios may need to be
> the same. In the case of foreground and background colours, we want to
> ensure there is enough contrast to read the content. With link/non-link
> text we are wanting to ensure there is enough difference between the
> colours that the user can identify that there is a difference.
>
> I think it might be possible that the contrast ratio can be lower, but
> since the other ratio works and I don't have a ratio to suggest, I will
> keep using the ones mentioned in WCAG 2.0.
>
> I only mention this now in case someone else might have information that
> would support using a different ratio or that would help me understand
> that the ratios mentioned in WCAG 2.0 are equally valid for these type
> of situations.
>
> Thanks!
> Tim
>