-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Graphs are not accessible to the color blind #74
Comments
+1 I've mentioned to @ianjorgensen and @skrugman recently that I would like us to start exploring accessible typography (there are standards for things like type vs. background color contrast, and we should try to meet them and/or have a user option for an accessible color and type "skin"). |
This is important. I will address it Monday.
|
Btw, was talking with my accessibility analyst friend about this stuff some more over the weekend and he told me something that I wasn't thinking about. I'll borrow the words from Apple's usability guides
So, perhaps we need to look into some other way to visualize the two states without relying on color alone? |
To test for color blindness nothing beats being color blind, even better @cheddar yes color and shape is the general rule, street crossing lights |
Another link that might be helpful. http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html |
Our recommended versus actual bolus colors are not accessible to colorblind people. Given the room for complications with diabetes, I think it's important that we design for being as accessible to as many people with "disabilities" as possible from the beginning, so I think we should reconsider the color choices.
I might be wrong on the colors, but from what Chrome told me the colors are
actual:
#79d0f2
recommended:
#bcecfa
There's a handy website that you can use to verify that colors will contrast enough to be visible to the color blind: http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
This website shows that our current color choices fail. We should strive for at least WCAG AA. AAA is great, but AA is generally minimum.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: