https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58683

--- Comment #9 from Marcin CieĊ›lak <marcin.cies...@gmail.com> ---
When planning color scheme you also need to take into account appropriate
contrast between link text and non-link text, including active and visited
elements. So, link text needs to contrast not only against the background but
also against the non-link text.

This article (from another Jared by the way)
http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-2-0-and-link-colors/ explains in the easy way that
if your primary colours are not white and black the choice for links gets very
limited.

I also have to take note that relative luminance cannot be the only factor,
since for example I feel that #666 text on #fff background vs. #fff text on
#666 have different readability, but the same relative luminance according to
WCAG definition. (If you are interested, I find #fff on #666 bg more
"contrasting" than #666 on #fff). There is an interesting remark
herehttp://markboulton.co.uk/journal/five-simple-steps-to-better-typography on
the white text on dark background schemes:

> When reversing colour out, eg white text on black, make sure you increase the 
> leading, tracking and decrease your font-weight. This applies to all widths 
> of 
> Measure. White text on a black background is a higher contrast to the 
> opposite,
> so the letterforms need to be wider apart, lighter in weight
> and have more space between the lines.

Seen many usability consultants and fads come and go I'd be extremely cautious
here. For example, when working on the terminal emulator I definitely prefer
light on dark while most light on dark websites are more difficult to read? I
don't seem to be getting answer from various experts around.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to