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: glen walker
Date: Jan 28, 2022 9:14AM

Just because siteimprove or axe or wave or arc mark something as an error
does not necessarily mean it's an error. Even with automated tools, you
have to inspect the results for false positives or matters of opinion.

There are a lot of fuzzy areas in WCAG that are subjective. Is a page
title descriptive enough? Does the alternative text really give an
equivalent experience?

Tools are great for scanning and can catch many problems but they're not
infallible. They're written by developers (like me) that take their biases
and subjectivity into their coding and if they personally think something
is an error, they'll flag it, but another accessibility professional might
not agree. That's ok. It leads to healthy discussions.

With the proposed rewording of the understanding section of 1.4.1 saying
that you *can* use color as the only means to identify a link embedded in
text as long as the contrast is sufficient, that doesn't mean you have to
agree with it or recommend it. If the proposed wording becomes accepted,
then I might have to adjust how I report. What I mean by that is
previously, if there was sufficient contrast but there wasn't another
visual clue such as underline, I would fail the issue for 1.4.1. With the
new wording, I might not be able to strictly fail it but I could write it
up as an issue that technically doesn't fail WCAG but strongly encourage to
fix it anyway.