4 ms·

The links are accessible to everything which can determine an <a> exists, uniquely defined with a visual indicator that doesn't require color, and show before y

The links are accessible to everything which can determine an <a> exists, uniquely defined with a visual indicator that doesn't require color, and show before you hover if it is internal or external. Requiring a link to be underlined doesn't seem productive from an accessibility perspective to me. I did some research on a11y and didn't see anything in the audit checklists that this violates [0], could you explain what the precise issue is? [0] obviously checklists aren't everything.

junon 4y ago
Patterns and consistency are a large part of accessibility.
- sloum 4y ago
  There is a clear pattern and clear consistency at play here and there is no violation of the w3c/wai standards involving these links.
  - junon 4y ago
    It is not consistent with other websites. That was more my point.
kristopolous 4y ago
There's people who have expressed issues in the accessibility of the content therefore it's inaccessible. It's really that simple. You can heed to people's sincere requests or not. Using checklists to invalidates their concerns intentionally makes them invisible by putting in effort to invalidate their concerns. Again, nobody has to take action and everyone has free will here.
- sloum 4y ago
  The link styling system used on the wiki complies with all web accessibility standards: it clearly and consistently shows a link without using color as the sole determining factor. An underling is not required (whether you think it should be or not, though feel free to get involved, join a working group, and lobby for the change to your hearts content... though I think it will be an uphill battle for you). Accessibility standards are about helping those with disabilities. What you are experiencing is a difference of opinion about _usability_. I personally do not experience the same usability issues, but to each their own on that one. Accessibility and usability are two very different things and should not be conflated.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - chungy 4y ago
    The link styling is inconsistent with basically every other web page; underlines haven't been "everywhere" since the late 1990s (for better or worse), but distinguishing links has usually been done via the use of color, maybe some other border effect. The style chosen by this particular web page comes across not as hyperlinks, but as a weird choice to randomly remove words and phrases from the main sentence matter, rendering them more difficult to read and comprehend, and worse, leaving the reader unaware this this choice actually denoted a link.
    - sloum 4y ago
      Using color alone to distinguish links is explicitly an accessibility violation. Underlines are not a requirement. I certainly agree that the link system here is atypical. It just isnt an accessibility violation.
  - kristopolous 4y ago
    > Accessibility and usability are two very different things and should not be conflated. Nope. They are the same. It's a taxonomy of convenience. I do not care what W3C says about this. Example: If you have something with say clean typefaces it may be considered more usable unless the person has low vision or dyslexia then it's accessibility. The labels are easily swappable and there's tons of learning and attention disabilities people have (most people are probably not cognitively perfect). What if you add an elevator to a building with a bunch of stairs. That's accessibility for the handicapped but also usability for others and thus we've swapped in the opposite direction. You can take everything labeled usability and relabel it accessibility with a slightly different narrative and the reverse is true also. The distinction therefore, in this context, is illusory. It's not an actual material difference here, just a fiction. In scholarly research sure it's not the same. But in the material world without the clinical precision of scholarship, they are in practice always intertwined. And this is fine, I don't care. A taxonomy of convenience is still a convenient taxonomy. Let's not kid ourselves however...

junon 4y ago

Patterns and consistency are a large part of accessibility.

sloum 4y ago
There is a clear pattern and clear consistency at play here and there is no violation of the w3c/wai standards involving these links.
- junon 4y ago
  It is not consistent with other websites. That was more my point.

kristopolous 4y ago

There's people who have expressed issues in the accessibility of the content therefore it's inaccessible. It's really that simple. You can heed to people's sincere requests or not. Using checklists to invalidates their concerns intentionally makes them invisible by putting in effort to invalidate their concerns. Again, nobody has to take action and everyone has free will here.

sloum 4y ago
The link styling system used on the wiki complies with all web accessibility standards: it clearly and consistently shows a link without using color as the sole determining factor. An underling is not required (whether you think it should be or not, though feel free to get involved, join a working group, and lobby for the change to your hearts content... though I think it will be an uphill battle for you). Accessibility standards are about helping those with disabilities. What you are experiencing is a difference of opinion about _usability_. I personally do not experience the same usability issues, but to each their own on that one. Accessibility and usability are two very different things and should not be conflated.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chungy 4y ago
  The link styling is inconsistent with basically every other web page; underlines haven't been "everywhere" since the late 1990s (for better or worse), but distinguishing links has usually been done via the use of color, maybe some other border effect. The style chosen by this particular web page comes across not as hyperlinks, but as a weird choice to randomly remove words and phrases from the main sentence matter, rendering them more difficult to read and comprehend, and worse, leaving the reader unaware this this choice actually denoted a link.
  - sloum 4y ago
    Using color alone to distinguish links is explicitly an accessibility violation. Underlines are not a requirement. I certainly agree that the link system here is atypical. It just isnt an accessibility violation.
- kristopolous 4y ago
  > Accessibility and usability are two very different things and should not be conflated. Nope. They are the same. It's a taxonomy of convenience. I do not care what W3C says about this. Example: If you have something with say clean typefaces it may be considered more usable unless the person has low vision or dyslexia then it's accessibility. The labels are easily swappable and there's tons of learning and attention disabilities people have (most people are probably not cognitively perfect). What if you add an elevator to a building with a bunch of stairs. That's accessibility for the handicapped but also usability for others and thus we've swapped in the opposite direction. You can take everything labeled usability and relabel it accessibility with a slightly different narrative and the reverse is true also. The distinction therefore, in this context, is illusory. It's not an actual material difference here, just a fiction. In scholarly research sure it's not the same. But in the material world without the clinical precision of scholarship, they are in practice always intertwined. And this is fine, I don't care. A taxonomy of convenience is still a convenient taxonomy. Let's not kid ourselves however...