E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)

From: Sven Jenzer
Date: Wed, Jan 26 2022 10:24AM
Subject: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A
No previous message | Next message →

We recognized that certain test-tools changed their evaluation routine.

Recommended technique is to have text in black color and links in blue
color with underline. In addition to the different color, a visual clue
(underline) is added.

An often used technique is the sufficient technique G183
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G183.html

With this technique, a relative luminance
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/> (lightness) difference of 3:1 or greater
with the text around it can be used if additional visual confirmation is
available when a user points or tabs to the link. Visual highlights may,
for example, take the form of underline, a change in font style such as
bold or italics, or an increase in font size.

While using this technique is sufficient to meet this success criteria,
it is not the preferred technique to differentiate link text. This is
because links that use the relative luminance of color alone may not be
obvious to people with black/white color blindness. If there are not a
large number of links in the block of text, underlines are recommended
for links.

Example: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/working-examples/link-contrast/

I assume this is still valid to pass this SC?

Anyone knows of a change?

Many websites would need to change if this sufficient technique G183 is
no more valid.

From: glen walker
Date: Wed, Jan 26 2022 12:04PM
Subject: Re: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm curious what prompted your question. Do you think G183 is going away?
I have not heard that so it's still a valid way to pass 1.4.1.

Is it the preferred way? I personally don't think so. I think links
embedded in text should stand out on their own without requiring hovering
or keyboard focus. Underlining has been the standard since the beginning
but you could have them be bold or italic or a larger font or a different
font family. That might make some minimalist designers cringe.

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 26 2022 12:52PM
Subject: Re: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A
← Previous message | Next message →

On 26/01/2022 17:24, Sven Jenzer wrote:
> We recognized that certain test-tools changed their evaluation routine.
>
> Recommended technique is to have text in black color and links in blue
> color with underline. In addition to the different color, a visual clue
> (underline) is added.
>
> An often used technique is the sufficient technique G183
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G183.html
>
> With this technique, a relative luminance
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/> (lightness) difference of 3:1 or greater
> with the text around it can be used if additional visual confirmation is
> available when a user points or tabs to the link. Visual highlights may,
> for example, take the form of underline, a change in font style such as
> bold or italics, or an increase in font size.
>
> While using this technique is sufficient to meet this success criteria,
> it is not the preferred technique to differentiate link text. This is
> because links that use the relative luminance of color alone may not be
> obvious to people with black/white color blindness. If there are not a
> large number of links in the block of text, underlines are recommended
> for links.
>
> Example: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/working-examples/link-contrast/
>
> I assume this is still valid to pass this SC?
>
> Anyone knows of a change?

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.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

From: glen walker
Date: Wed, Jan 26 2022 2:57PM
Subject: Re: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS 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.
>
>
>

From: Sven Jenzer
Date: Fri, Jan 28 2022 8:11AM
Subject: Re: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A
← Previous message | Next message →

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:

<snip>
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
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/use-of-color.html>
* Siteimprove Alfa: Technical documentation for rule SIA-R62
<https://alfa.siteimprove.com/rules/sia-r62>

</snip>

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.

Best,
Sven


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 ADDRESS 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.
>>
>>
>>

From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Jan 28 2022 9:14AM
Subject: Re: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A
← Previous message | Next message →

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.

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Jan 28 2022 9:29AM
Subject: Re: Is color alone for links, with enough color contrast, sufficient - SC 1.4.1. A
← Previous message | No next message

On 28/01/2022 16:14, glen walker wrote:

> If the proposed wording becomes accepted,

It's been accepted by AGWG and merged into the editor's draft, just not
published yet (though of course it could become "unaccepted" I guess if
somebody made a PR that removes it again before the next scheduled
publication when the editor's draft is pushed out to the stable URL, but
that would then also need to get AGWG consensus)

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke