WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: What about semi-bold?

for

From: John Foliot
Date: Feb 14, 2019 6:58PM

Hi all,

It's worth noting that 11 years ago, the reality on the ground was
basically the binary bold and not bold options. Browser support for the
font-weight property was not well (if?) supported in 2008 (for example,
Chrome 2 shipped 4 months before WCAG 2.0)

https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_font_weight.asp

This need for more specificity to the standard suggests it is a good
candidate for a next-gen Success Criteria in WCAG 2.x, which I'll volunteer
my buddy Patrick to support me in bringing back to the W3C.

JF

(Sent from my mobile, apologies for any spelling mistakes)

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 7:27 PM Aditya via WebAIM-Forum <
<EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:

> I agree with the interpretation. Ask designers to choose colors that meet
> 4.5:1. If that's not possible, and if you really want to go by strict
> rules, enforce "bold = 700" rule. Depending on the font it might look
> hideous and a different color that meets 4.5 ratio might be given to you :)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 14, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/02/2019 22:39, Jared Smith wrote:
> >> WCAG doesn't address this. They simply set the "large text" threshold
> >> with "bold" text - generally defined as 700 weight in CSS. Of course
> >> different font faces will have different weights and boldness when
> >> bold, so common sense is in order.
> >
> > I'll echo Jared's comment here...WCAG is surprisingly vague in this
> regard. Even just taking "bold" to mean 700 weight, this is mostly
> irrelevant as it does not take into account the actual typeface - even when
> set to "bold", some typefaces can be extremely thin. So it's a very
> handwavy requirement overall...
> >
> >> I would suggest that if text has less than 4.5:1 contrast and the only
> >> thing that would allow it to pass WCAG is for it to be made bold and
> >> thus "large text", that it probably has pretty low contrast
> >> regardless.
> >
> > And I'd agree here as well. In an audit situation, I would say that text
> that is subjectively "bold-looking enough" may nominally pass the SC, but
> would still strongly advise clients not to rely on this and just aim for
> 4.5:1 regardless.
> >
> > P
> > --
> > Patrick H. Lauke
> >
> > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >