Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We have recently incorporated several accessibility improvements (thanks to great Belgium, Open Source Politics and @MoretS's work ❤️) that allow Decidim to be more compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 and make it more accessible for people with disabilities and more usable for everyone in general.
Reviewing the changes in the styles, we have some doubts about why some solutions have been chosen, since in some cases they alter considerably the graphic interface of the platform, and also do not hold consistency.
Since accessibility guidelines, especially in terms of design, are always highly context-dependent, we'd like to know more about the specific problem to be solved with some type of elements in order to, if necessary, propose alternatives that also comply with accessibility requirements, while maintaining design consistency.
So at a design level, we have doubts mainly with links and buttons.
Links
In the case of links, it is important that they can be differentiated not only by color but also by other distinguishing features. In this case, however, we could consider that the border around the link provides information in addition to the color:
Or in this other example, the underlined hover applies to all elements:
Buttons
In the buttons there are different behaviors, in some a hover with shadow and underline is applied and in others not:
The shaded and underlined hover is the most disruptive change in the design
Describe the solution you’d like
We're not so sure on the solution itself, but we want to start a discussion regarding this topics. We want an alternative design for links and buttons that complies with WCAG2.1 and is consistent with the rest of the design.
Describe alternatives you’ve considered
A complete platform design review with an accessibility perspective, but we can't address that right now.
It's also really relevant what @ahukkanen proposed on Metadecidim regarding buttons, although at the moment we want to only tackle this two pain points for fixing them before the next release.
Related issues
#5684
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/bug-report/f/210/proposals/15108
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/bug-report/f/210/proposals/15109
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/bug-report/f/210/proposals/15112
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We have recently incorporated several accessibility improvements (thanks to great Belgium, Open Source Politics and @MoretS's work ❤️) that allow Decidim to be more compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 and make it more accessible for people with disabilities and more usable for everyone in general.
Reviewing the changes in the styles, we have some doubts about why some solutions have been chosen, since in some cases they alter considerably the graphic interface of the platform, and also do not hold consistency.
Since accessibility guidelines, especially in terms of design, are always highly context-dependent, we'd like to know more about the specific problem to be solved with some type of elements in order to, if necessary, propose alternatives that also comply with accessibility requirements, while maintaining design consistency.
So at a design level, we have doubts mainly with links and buttons.
Links
In the case of links, it is important that they can be differentiated not only by color but also by other distinguishing features. In this case, however, we could consider that the border around the link provides information in addition to the color:
Or in this other example, the underlined hover applies to all elements:
Buttons
In the buttons there are different behaviors, in some a hover with shadow and underline is applied and in others not:
The shaded and underlined hover is the most disruptive change in the design
Describe the solution you’d like
We're not so sure on the solution itself, but we want to start a discussion regarding this topics. We want an alternative design for links and buttons that complies with WCAG2.1 and is consistent with the rest of the design.
Describe alternatives you’ve considered
A complete platform design review with an accessibility perspective, but we can't address that right now.
It's also really relevant what @ahukkanen proposed on Metadecidim regarding buttons, although at the moment we want to only tackle this two pain points for fixing them before the next release.
Related issues
#5684
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/bug-report/f/210/proposals/15108
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/bug-report/f/210/proposals/15109
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/bug-report/f/210/proposals/15112