document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(it => it.style.textDecoration='underline')
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(it => it.style.textDecoration='underline')
Fortunately, if there is such a top-level comment, any other comments can be replies to that and so you do not need to fill up the top-level comments with such kind of complaints, I think.
Does it really require that much cursor waving? It's nice to have the distinction, and I personally like the visual impact.
Am I missing something?
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.
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.
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.
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...
It was someone deciding they don't have to listen or act about something because they chose to label it usability.
That's actual mechanics of what went down. It's just a game here. A retreat to abstractions doesn't change that.
I'm not here to scold people but I also don't like nonsense
If it's equally a problem for everyone then it's not an accessibility problem.
(And don't think for a second that any design avoids causing problems.)
"ARIA view" with a user specified CSS and using a combination of HTML and ARIA roles to decide how to display, can be helpful, perhaps. (This would be true for form fields too; some web pages implement their own, but sometimes specify by ARIA codes, what they represent; you can use that to replace them by the standard widgets instead of their specialized ones.)
I'll try to bear your "new site, new visual iconography" preferences in mind when I build out my site and decide that Captialized links are offsite links, MiXeDcaSe are dynamically generated ones, and all text except hyperlinks will be blue underlines
This person's site is clearly packed full of innovative idea; I don't understand why CSS tomfoolery needs to be one of them in order to make it stand out
// ==UserScript==
// @name Underline links
// @namespace http://tampermonkey.net/
// @version 0.1
// @description Underline all the links!
// @author mdaniel
// @match https://*/*
// @match http://*/*
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==
(() => {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(it => it.style.textDecoration='underline');
})();.niarfer ot semit dna