StackEx use of APCA (feedback) #109
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
Hi @giamir
This is the kind of feedback we really need here!! I sense the issue may be the "too broad" definition of body text we were using, and we are working on a new definition, one possibility is: Body TextBody text is defined as columns of text, or blocks of text closely grouped with related blovks of text, which are the essential parts of primary content, where the smallest of x-height, or typical glyph body height, is no larger than 16px¹, and is at a weight of 600 or less. MARKUP: we are considering adding in something like "body text is inside a In the case of StackExchange, the body text is only:
except for "rejects" which are faded. On the subject of contrast reduction for inactive or deprecated content: we want to encourage using high contrast for promary content and using contrast mosulation for a visual hierarchy. There should never be a "give me all the contrast you can Scotty", less important things should be lower contrast. ¹ 16px x-height is based on a font with a large 0.55 x-height ratio, which is similar to about ~28px Verdana as a "max" font-size. This relates to a default size before any user zoom or adjustment is done. This is not a maximum font size, it is simply the point where fluent text is no longer considered body text. That said, we are entertaining ideas for testable ways to define body text as opposed to other fluent text. Also, I am happy to and discuss any of these issues with Stack, I know there have been some teething pains as you redevelop your schemes. As a regular user of StachExchange, I do have thoughts & comments if interested.... Thank you for reading |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This post copied from axe-core to move the conversation over here.
@Myndex thanks for your comment and your work on APCA.
Yes, you can check the source code for details. Specifically the table in this page.
In my opinion one of the main issues we found was to fully comply with the bronze conformance levels (which requires Lc75 for body text). This is one of the reasons why the package we created accept also "custom thresholds" (see here) and we started by aiming to achieve Lc60 (see our design system docs). I am happy to pass on the APCA forum link to my colleagues in case they are interested to join the conversation and share their feedback.
I cannot comment on this. I will mention it to my leadership though. Thanks
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions