It's funny to me that as I read this post the text is #828282 and the background color is #F6F6EF, a contrast ratio of 2.23:1 failing the 4.5:1 ratio minimum in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
First you will need to convince people that WCAG is relevant. I have worked at over a dozen employers at this point and none of them have thought it worth mention. The anecdotes on Hacker News about it are that the individual devs had to do the legwork to get it considered.
I don't convince employers or clients to follow WCAG, I just do it. If they say the link needs to be yellower, I figure out how to make the link look yellower and make it within WCAG.
If they ask for something outside WCAG, I say no, that doesn't meet the standards required and do not ask if they want to respect the standard.
I learned to stop asking permission to use my professional judgement when I went to a boss with an active password/login leak that was risking an important dataset and his response was "if it hasn't leaked, let's just not worry about it and leave it"
What do you know, the next morning he was informed of a leak and I was approved to fix the issue. The leak was not real, of course.
It is quite relevant if you work with public entities - schools, cities, etc. There are people out there who test government sites to be sure they are compliant and report it to the DOJ when they find failures. And the folks at the DOJ will call you to discuss it. Those calls were surprisingly pleasant and helpful, at least in those days (I haven't done that work in 5 years), but if you think you won't get called out on it in public industries, you'd be mistaken.
It is not necessarily relevant if you only work with private individuals and entities.
But it also isn't that much of a burden. So my take on it is just do it and then it never is a problem.
> But it also isn't that much of a burden. So my take on it is just do it and then it never is a problem.
What are you meant to do when you have an existing site with a brand that has inaccessible colors for the headings, buttons, links, backgrounds, text etc.? Sometimes it's not as easy as making a few colors darker/lighter, and it's a huge ask to get the client to modify their brand for this, as well as updating the styling code everywhere.
It's just people following trends I think, designers not knowing about WCAG, and designers with decent eyesight not knowing to consider people with poor eyesight. Someone sees some elegant looking site that has grey text and/or thin text, they copy it, someone else copies that etc. without really thinking about what it's going to be like to read a long article with that design.
- From my experience working with designers, many have minimal understanding of WCAG and will only adjust the contrast near the end of the design phase (as in, after the client has signed-off on it) to get it within passing limits if they're told to, and only if it's easy to do without spoiling their design.
- The rules for body text are pretty simple and I'm not excusing it, but WCAG is intimidating and confusing for most I think (ask designers why they don't follow it or understand it). There's loads of rules, the documentation is verbose, and it tells you what needs to pass, but lacks guidelines on how to do this in a way that doesn't change the look of your branded designs.
- I've been in this situation as a developer a few times where I'll tell the designer what specific WCAG rules aren't being followed, and they'll not change anything because they don't know what to do without compromising their design e.g. I'll mention "your main brand color can be used for large heading text, but it doesn't contrast enough for buttons", where the options might include picking a darker brand color (a big ask), a darker color just for buttons (might look weird), or maybe black for buttons (will change the look a lot).
- It's really common for designers to pick bright/vibrant colors for the main brand color too that won't be accessible for body/button/link text, so being told they have to pick a darker color can feel like a big unfair restriction, especially when they see large brands or the designers they follow breaking the WCAG contrast rules all the time. Also, when most brand guidelines don't include contrast metrics for recommended color pairings, you can tell this hasn't been thought about much.
To help with the above, I started working on a tool to create branded color palettes, with the idea that you pick the colors for your headings, buttons, body text etc. that have accessible contrast upfront, rather than tweaking the contrast of these as an afterthought later:
There is no reason. Configure your browser to always open sites in reader mode, and you have solved all problems with the modern internet. Both for desktop and mobile.
On the one hand, there are lots of articles explaining that #000000 is not true black, and #ffffff is not true white.
On the other, there are lots of articles explaining that black on white will cause readers discomfort so recommend camouflaged light grey on dark grey, or vice versa, as better.
It's designers flexing their knowledge of the 3:1 limit. It's like how architects don't make rectangular buildings, there has to be some curve somewhere.
Some say that black on white is harsh on the eyes, but something like 10:1 should be fine.
My theory is it's due to the prevalence of Apple Macbooks which have horrible glossy screens so users have to crank up the brightness to full to see anything at all.
I think some bad web design instructions just get propagated among script kiddy web designers = fat fee for minimal work. I like black on white = I hate beige/fawn text on ochre/puce? screens. I have complained to about a dozen sites = zero response = I endure and visit less.
It's funny to me that as I read this post the text is #828282 and the background color is #F6F6EF, a contrast ratio of 2.23:1 failing the 4.5:1 ratio minimum in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
First you will need to convince people that WCAG is relevant. I have worked at over a dozen employers at this point and none of them have thought it worth mention. The anecdotes on Hacker News about it are that the individual devs had to do the legwork to get it considered.
I don't convince employers or clients to follow WCAG, I just do it. If they say the link needs to be yellower, I figure out how to make the link look yellower and make it within WCAG.
If they ask for something outside WCAG, I say no, that doesn't meet the standards required and do not ask if they want to respect the standard.
I learned to stop asking permission to use my professional judgement when I went to a boss with an active password/login leak that was risking an important dataset and his response was "if it hasn't leaked, let's just not worry about it and leave it"
What do you know, the next morning he was informed of a leak and I was approved to fix the issue. The leak was not real, of course.
It is quite relevant if you work with public entities - schools, cities, etc. There are people out there who test government sites to be sure they are compliant and report it to the DOJ when they find failures. And the folks at the DOJ will call you to discuss it. Those calls were surprisingly pleasant and helpful, at least in those days (I haven't done that work in 5 years), but if you think you won't get called out on it in public industries, you'd be mistaken.
It is not necessarily relevant if you only work with private individuals and entities.
But it also isn't that much of a burden. So my take on it is just do it and then it never is a problem.
> But it also isn't that much of a burden. So my take on it is just do it and then it never is a problem.
What are you meant to do when you have an existing site with a brand that has inaccessible colors for the headings, buttons, links, backgrounds, text etc.? Sometimes it's not as easy as making a few colors darker/lighter, and it's a huge ask to get the client to modify their brand for this, as well as updating the styling code everywhere.
Regardless of how one personally feels about it, you can get sued into oblivion in certain countries for not complying with WCAG, so that's something.
Give me one example.
It's just people following trends I think, designers not knowing about WCAG, and designers with decent eyesight not knowing to consider people with poor eyesight. Someone sees some elegant looking site that has grey text and/or thin text, they copy it, someone else copies that etc. without really thinking about what it's going to be like to read a long article with that design.
- From my experience working with designers, many have minimal understanding of WCAG and will only adjust the contrast near the end of the design phase (as in, after the client has signed-off on it) to get it within passing limits if they're told to, and only if it's easy to do without spoiling their design.
- The rules for body text are pretty simple and I'm not excusing it, but WCAG is intimidating and confusing for most I think (ask designers why they don't follow it or understand it). There's loads of rules, the documentation is verbose, and it tells you what needs to pass, but lacks guidelines on how to do this in a way that doesn't change the look of your branded designs.
- I've been in this situation as a developer a few times where I'll tell the designer what specific WCAG rules aren't being followed, and they'll not change anything because they don't know what to do without compromising their design e.g. I'll mention "your main brand color can be used for large heading text, but it doesn't contrast enough for buttons", where the options might include picking a darker brand color (a big ask), a darker color just for buttons (might look weird), or maybe black for buttons (will change the look a lot).
- It's really common for designers to pick bright/vibrant colors for the main brand color too that won't be accessible for body/button/link text, so being told they have to pick a darker color can feel like a big unfair restriction, especially when they see large brands or the designers they follow breaking the WCAG contrast rules all the time. Also, when most brand guidelines don't include contrast metrics for recommended color pairings, you can tell this hasn't been thought about much.
To help with the above, I started working on a tool to create branded color palettes, with the idea that you pick the colors for your headings, buttons, body text etc. that have accessible contrast upfront, rather than tweaking the contrast of these as an afterthought later:
https://www.inclusivecolors.com/
There is no reason. Configure your browser to always open sites in reader mode, and you have solved all problems with the modern internet. Both for desktop and mobile.
On the one hand, there are lots of articles explaining that #000000 is not true black, and #ffffff is not true white.
On the other, there are lots of articles explaining that black on white will cause readers discomfort so recommend camouflaged light grey on dark grey, or vice versa, as better.
I think designers, who are mostly young, think it looks hip and don't think about people with iffy eyesight.
It's designers flexing their knowledge of the 3:1 limit. It's like how architects don't make rectangular buildings, there has to be some curve somewhere.
Some say that black on white is harsh on the eyes, but something like 10:1 should be fine.
Designers have been trained to never use white or black. I believe the justification is less eye strain, but many take it too far.
Everyone copies Hacker News now.
My theory is it's due to the prevalence of Apple Macbooks which have horrible glossy screens so users have to crank up the brightness to full to see anything at all.
I think some bad web design instructions just get propagated among script kiddy web designers = fat fee for minimal work. I like black on white = I hate beige/fawn text on ochre/puce? screens. I have complained to about a dozen sites = zero response = I endure and visit less.
It is meant to look soft and minimal and it looks fine on a brightly lit, expensive monitor.
apple. tiny light gray text on white background, barely visible.