Hi all, If any of you are colorblind (any type, but particularly red-green), could you have a look at this screengrab, and let me know if: The 'errata' and 'original' titles and left bar look different. The two highlight colors used on the text look different.
@ijw Love the thought and effort. There are online tools for designers and webdevs to test those things pretty accurately though. Check out: https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/ You can just paste the image in, even from a Windows screenshot (Win + Shift + S). Seems like only the deuteranopia scenario is anywhere close to being an issue and it's still discernible. Seems like you have a good set of colors! :) Obviously, with achromatopsia these will not be discernible at all (full grayscale), maybe to cover all the bases you could do something with the font style to differentiate the two markings? Italicise it, dashed underscore it or something of the kind? Thank you again for trying to make the Wiki as accessible as possible! Very proud that this effort is made :)
I'm somewhat red/green colorblind. The highlight colors are easily distinguishable for me. Paler colors (e.g. tints) are usually easiest, subjectively. Errata/Original are a bit harder to distinguish, because darker reds/greens tend to become a bit murky/brown but I can still tell the difference between them in this instance. Slightly more saturation or a different luminance on ONE of those colors would likely help differentiate it from the other. I have heard that those of us who are colorblind may have heightened sensitivity to variations in luminance (and it seems subjectively true for me) so even if the colors appear very close tonally, a luminance shift is often times enough to help me.
Minor red green deficiency here. Highlights are good. As Lawson said playing with variances in tint and saturation can make a huge difference. I can tell the Errata and Original are different, but they are pretty close and it is possible I only noticed the difference due to being forwarned abotu it. On a glance I likely would not see it. And thank you so much for asking in the first place.
Generally, web design best practices for accessibility would support the design as-is since there’s an existing differentiating label and the colors aren’t actually required to discern the differences in the content. However, it would still be good (and considerate to users generally) to include an additional secondary indicator aside from color differentiation. I would suggest either a clear, legible icon, changing the solid vertical line alongside the outdated text to a dotted line or something similar, italicizing the text (has some general legibility fallout though), or some other combination of traits. As an aside, I suspect some of the formatting on the wiki doesn’t comply with WCAG contrast guidelines—particularly instances of white text against yellow backgrounds.
