WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: FW: non-underlined link - will bolding meet contrast requirement?

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Jun 23, 2016 7:17AM

This was my thought too. If you can wrap the anchor in a bold tag, why
can't you just add in like text-decoration: underline; to an anchor or a
span?

Ryan E. Benson
On Jun 23, 2016 08:36, "Swift, Daniel P." < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> I'm assuming that your colleague is unable to edit the source in that
> particular block? Inline styling would override the styles imposed by the
> external stylesheet. Alternatively, adding a second stylesheet (obviously
> not desirable) with higher specificity for links would also override the
> style. To me, this seems like a more appropriate solution (if possible).
>
> -Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
> Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:51 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] FW: non-underlined link - will bolding meet contrast
> requirement?
>
> Ok, a few points of clarification (as always, feel free to correct me if I
> am mistaken anywhere):
> There are two different WCAG SC at play here:
> 1.4.1 talks about being able to distinguish links from surrounding text
> (only when links are embedded in a block of text). Bolding the link text
> here suffices to distinguish the link from the surrounding text, so the 3
> to 1 color contrast of link text vs. surrounding text no longer applies. As
> pointed out this technically passes, though it is not optimal.
>
> 1.4.3 talks about contrast ratio of text to background. Bolding the link
> text reduces the 4.5:1 requirement to 3:1, but it still has to be met.
>
> Visual formatting does not affect screen readers when done via CSS.
> If html text-level semantic elements such as <I>, <b>, <em> and <strong>
> elements are used to do this, it could technically affect screen readers.
> But in reality most screen readers are not affected as they do nothing with
> these elements, something that will hopefully change. See test page for
> some of these at:
> http://whoseline.a11yideas.com/01_semanticTextElements.html
>
>
>
>
> On 6/22/16, Jonathan Avila < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >> You're statement is correct - making something bold does increase
> >> it's relative visible contrast - but it does not change the contrast
> >> ratio as determined by WCAG.
> >
> > Bold text that is 14point through 17 point is the exception to this
> > statement. That is -- bold text that is 14pt or larger has a lesser
> > contrast ratio than non-bold text less than 18 pt according to WCAG 2.
> > It doesn't guarantee it can be read by people with low vision or color
> > deficiencies though.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > Jonathan Avila
> > Chief Accessibility Officer
> > SSB BART Group
> > <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > 703.637.8957 (Office)
> >
> > Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog Check
> > out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
> > Behalf Of Jared Smith
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 4:32 PM
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List
> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] FW: non-underlined link - will bolding meet
> > contrast requirement?
> >
> > Thad -
> >
> > You're statement is correct - making something bold does increase it's
> > relative visible contrast - but it does not change the contrast ratio
> > as determined by WCAG.
> >
> > Jared
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Thad C < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > wrote:
> >> I definitely defer to Jared on this. Sorry if my statement indicating
> >> that making a font bold may, in some cases, increase contrast was
> >> missleading .... always learning.
> >>
> >> Thaddeus
> >> On Jun 22, 2016 12:57 PM, "Jared Smith" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> If the links are made bold, then they are no longer relying solely
> >>> on color to differentiate them from non-link text. Now bold is
> >>> generally less discernible than underline, and as Caitlin noted,
> >>> bold can also be used for emphasized text. While not optimal, I
> >>> believe that bold text (especially if used with sufficient contrast
> >>> differences) would be sufficient to meet the WCAG requirement for
> >>> not relying on color alone.
> >>>
> >>> Bold text does not change the contrast ratio. WCAG does have a lower
> >>> foreground-to-background ratio threshold for text that is 14 point
> >>> and bold or larger, but this would not be applicable to the contrast
> >>> requirement (3:1 ratio) for links vs. surrounding text for
> >>> non-underlined links.
> >>>
> >>> Jared
> >>> > >>> > >>> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >>> > >>>
> >> > >> > >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >> > > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >