Closed danielnixon closed 5 years ago
Noting the irony that we're discussing this issue on a platform that is itself guilty of this very sin.
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F73:
The objective of this failure is to avoid situations in which people who cannot perceive color differences cannot identify links (when people with color vision can identify links). Link underlines or some other non-color visual distinction are required (when the links are discernible to those with color vision).
While some links may be visually evident from page design and context, such as navigational links, links within text are often visually understood only from their own display attributes. Removing the underline and leaving only the color difference for such links would be a failure because there would be no other visual indication (besides color) that it is a link.
Thanks for pointing this out. You're not wrong. However, I want to preserve the "Other approaches...could also be made to work." sentence, preferably with the "such as X or Y" verbiage in the middle. Pointing people to accessible alternatives is, I think, just as important as not pointing them to inaccessible alternatives.
Could you propose some phrasing in this thread? Once we are in the right ballpark, a PR would be very welcome.
This issue is regarding this paragraph discussing link styles:
Specifically:
My concern is that a reader may follow this advice without being aware of WCAG 2.0 1.4.1 Use of color:
It might be best to simply remove this advice.