WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A


From: Sven Jenzer
Date: Jan 28, 2022 8:11AM

Thanks, Patrick and Glen for clarification

Patrick's deck is awesome! Slide 56 is clarifying a lot and I see there
have been some discussions.

The test-tool we use is Siteimprove that changed to count it now as an
issue and it explains it this way:

People who are colorblind may be unable to find a link if color is its
only distinguishing feature.

Providing another visual cue —such as underlining or bolding the link
text— will also make it easier for non-colorblind people (especially
people with low vision) to scan the page.

* WCAG 2.1: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1: Use of Color
* Siteimprove Alfa: Technical documentation for rule SIA-R62


The brightness is missing.

Siteimprove is involved in developing the ACT-rules which are the test
logic in the tool. I hope this point is included there the right way.


Am 26.01.22 um 22:57 schrieb glen walker:
> Feels like a slippery slope and it's too bad the understanding section is
> making it easier to create something that should be very obvious. I'm
> still going to recommend that links look different from regular text with
> more than just a color (or luminance) difference. We all know there's lots
> of stuff that can pass WCAG but isn't a great UX. You have some great
> examples of this in your "These aren't the SCs you're looking for..."
> presentation such as the one-pixel focus indicator.
> https://patrickhlauke.github.io/wcag-interpretation/
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:52 PM Patrick H. Lauke< <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
>> Not sure why it's not been updated yet in the published version
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/use-of-color, but if you
>> check the latest editor's draft version
>> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/use-of-color.html it now
>> clarifies that a 3:1 contrast ratio already counts as a a second visual
>> cue other than color - so nominally, the underline on hover/focus is not
>> needed to pass the SC.