Closed lvjr closed 1 year ago
yes, we noticed that already, and in other code use two colors (and even prefixes), I will move that to tagpdf to have there two colors too.
The new version uses two colors.
Green on white hurts users' eyes. Its wcag color contrast is 1.37:1, too far away from minimal requirement 3:1 or 4.5:1. For a project focusing on user accessibility, I don't think it is a good choice even in debug display.
A very good point!
yes I know that red/green isn't the best. But blue as used in your example doesn't work well for me (not enough contrast to the black text). At some time there will be some option to change the content, but only after we merged in the list code (which uses an extended definition). As the code is currently in a public hook, you can adjust it if you want.
yes I know that red/green isn't the best. But blue as used in your example doesn't work well for me (not enough contrast to the black text).
I assume in most of the time the background is white. I could help to find proper colors if only white and black backgrounds are considered. For contents with any background you have to put paragraph numbers into colorboxes. I think it is no harm to use colorboxes for debug output.
As the code is currently in a public hook, you can adjust it if you want.
......
After turning on![parcolor1](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4239949/218231127-6b39170d-36b5-427d-9023-c0fb51f0124d.png)
paratagging-show
option, when I do something wrong with tagging, I get the following result:The colors at both![parcolor2](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/4239949/218231253-525cb854-5a71-411c-aa2b-59762cf41939.png)
para/begin
andpara/end
positions are the same. And it is quite hard to discover the tagging problem. When using two different colors by some hack, I will get the following better result: