3 ms·
An Interesting and entertaining article. The most interesting part to me (as someone with vision problems) was the WebAIM link [1]. The biggest problem I have
by bhrgunatha 6y ago
An Interesting and entertaining article.
The most interesting part to me (as someone with vision problems) was the WebAIM link [1]. The biggest problem I have is with the almost total blind adoption of low contrast (so often too low for me to even read) and sure enough the section about low contrast [2] says:
"found on 86.3% of home pages. _This was the most commonly-detected accessibility issue_.
My basic question then is why do so many designers and websites choose to break the WCAG guidelines?
[1] https://webaim.org/projects/million https://webaim.org/projects/million
[2] https://webaim.org/projects/million/#contrast https://webaim.org/projects/million/#contrast
- azemetre 6y agoThe easiest explanation is that the company hasn't been sued yet. Once a company gets sued and has to settle out of court, suddenly everyone will care about a11y.
- darekkay 6y agoFrom my experience, it is often not an active choice to break the guidelines. It's rather the lack of knowledge/experience or ignorance - or a mix of both ("What is this accessibility thing? Do we need it?"). For contrast ratio specifically, I wished more people would adapt the approach that USWDS uses [1]. It enforces accessible color combinations by using standardized naming with a special property. E.g., I know that `blue-60` on `purple-10` is accessible (WCAG AA), because the absolute difference is 50+ (60 - 10). I'm currently writing a blog post regarding this approach to spread the awareness. [1] https://designsystem.digital.gov/design-tokens/color/overview/ https://designsystem.digital.gov/design-tokens/color/overvie...