Site Usability nitpick -- Hyperlinks should be underlined

[Dale]

Pandering to the default ideal user at the expense of accessibility. Not a good ethos for PF.

I am still not convinced of this. And although it clearly exasperates you, your exasperation is not a credible substitute for actual evidence. When someone is unconvinced about relativity, I can point them to actual scientific papers with real experiments and repeatable and confirmed experimental data. I don't have to rely on authority nor name-calling.

Also, wouldn't the best solution be at the browser level rather than the site level? Why should either user's experience come at the expense of the other's?

 

[DaveC426913]

I am still not convinced of this. And although it clearly exasperates you, your exasperation is not a credible substitute for actual evidence. When someone is unconvinced about relativity, I can point them to actual scientific papers with real experiments and repeatable and confirmed experimental data. I don't have to rely on authority nor name-calling.

Well, yes. I didn't expect site usability decisions to have to undergo the same rigor as the science it proffers.

Presumably, one would avail themselves of the good work of the experts, we're not in the business of reinventing the wheel are we?

Minor changes are made here all the time. Is every one of the them preceded by throwing away industry guidelines and diving directly into the raw data?

We didn't delve into the data to examine the efficacy of gender labeling in user avatars.

Also, wouldn't the best solution be at the browser level rather than the site level? Why should either user's experience come at the expense of the other's?

But again, you are second-guessing, not only the industry experts, but the government's usability guidelines, as defined by the ADA in faovur of your personal opinion.

People with less than perfect vision should no longer be marginalized, to be left to solve their own problems, while the rest of the population enjoy being pandered to by policy. Seniors are now the largest demographic.


USA Accessibility mandates for web content:
In the U.S., web accessibility is mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (for state/local government and businesses open to the public) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (for federal agencies and vendors selling to the government). Both laws use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the technical standard, requiring content to meet WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA conformance. State and local governments have compliance deadlines in 2026 and 2027 depending on their size, while federal agencies and their vendors must be compliant now.

https://www.ada.gov/resources/web-guidance/#why-website-accessibility-matters
"Inaccessible web content means that people with disabilities are denied equal access to information. An inaccessible website can exclude people just as much as steps at an entrance to a physical location. Ensuring web accessibility for people with disabilities is a priority for the Department of Justice. In recent years, a multitude of services have moved online and people rely on websites like never before for all aspects of daily living. For example, accessing voting information, finding up-to-date health and safety resources, and looking up mass transit schedules and fare information increasingly depend on having access to websites."
...
"Use of color alone to give information. People who are color-blind may not have access to information when that information is conveyed using only color cues because they cannot distinguish certain colors from others. Also, screen readers do not tell the user the color of text on a screen, so a person who is blind would not be able to know that color is meant to convey certain information (for example, using red text alone to show which fields are required on a form)."

 

[Dale]

People with less than perfect vision should no longer be marginalized

I am one such person and your suggested "improvement" marginalizes me.

But again, you are second-guessing, not only the industry experts, but the government's usability guidelines, as defined by the ADA in faovur of your personal opinion.

And you are misrepresenting them in favor of your personal opinion. Reading the actual statement in the WCAG, underlines are NOT required. According to the standard the requirement is only that a link should be identified by some indication other than just hue. So bold or brightness would also suffice, according to the standard. Personally, I would find bold the least problematic for astigmatism.

 

[weirdoguy]

People with less than perfect vision should no longer be marginalized

@Dale also has less than perfect vision, which he stated multiple times, and you seem to deliberately ignore it.

EDIT: Oh sorry, I didn't see @Dale that you yourself wrote about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

@Dale also has less than perfect vision, which he stated multiple times, and you seem to deliberately ignore it.

I'm not ignoring it. I don't think we should be making site-wide policy based on one user's experience, when there is a mountain of evidence purported by experts in the field to be had.

Yes, not every user will be able to have an ideal experience, but does that mean we ignore the needs of the many in favour of the preferences of the one?

 

[DaveC426913]

And you are misrepresenting them in favor of your personal opinion.

It's not my personal opinion! How many industry experts do you require?

Reading the actual statement in the WCAG, underlines are NOT required. According to the standard the requirement is only that a link should be identified by some indication other than just hue. So bold or brightness would also suffice, according to the standard. Personally, I would find bold the least problematic for astigmatism.

OK, let's do that, then*.

* unfortunately, in blocks of text, users do not tend to associate bolding with hyperlinks. The indicator that users associate with hyperlinks is underlining.

But again, Dale's personal preference versus the industry experts?

 

[vela]

I think some years ago, heavy link websites started to move away from the underline because it added so much visual noise to the page.

Is PF a link-heavy site?

In my brief look at a number of sites the other day, I noticed most sites don't underline every link, but they do for links in a block of text where the visual indicators help them stand out from the surrounding text.

@Dale, does the underlining on a site like Ars Technica cause you problems?

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...have-been-as-uniformly-massive-as-we-thought/

 

[Dale]

It's not my personal opinion! How many industry experts do you require?

Yes, it is. The experts writing the standards you are citing are not actually saying what you claim they are saying. The standard does not require underlining. It requires some non-color difference. This could be underlining, but it could also be bold, luminosity, or anything else.

Here is what the industry experts that you are misrepresenting actually say in their standard:

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#use-of-color

Success Criterion 1.4.1​

Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/use-of-color

Understanding SC 1.4.1:
...
Note

If content is conveyed through the use of colors that differ not only in their hue, but that also have a significant difference in lightness, then this counts as an additional visual distinction, as long as the difference in relative luminance between the colors leads to a contrast ratio of 3:1 or greater. For example, a light green and a dark red differ both by color (hue) and by lightness, so they would pass if the contrast ratio is at least 3:1. Similarly, if content is distinguished by inverting an element's foreground and background colors, this would pass (again, assuming that the foreground and background colors have a sufficient contrast).

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G183

Technique G183:
Using a contrast ratio of 3:1 with surrounding text and providing additional visual cues on hover for links or controls where color alone is used to identify them
...
To meet Success Criterion 1.4.1: Use of Color a relative luminance (lightness) difference of 3:1 or greater with the text around can be used. This technique goes beyond the success criterion and asks for visual highlights when the user hovers over each link, such as an underline, a change in font style such as bold or italics, or an increase in font size. Such a hover effect provides confirmation to pointer users that the text is a link, similar to how the link alters its appearance for keyboard users when it receives focus, in order to meet 2.4.7 Focus Visible.
...
Example 2
The hypertext links in a document are medium-light blue (#3366CC) and the regular text is black (#000000). Beyond the difference in color, the links have no other styles differences compared with the regular text. Because the blue text is light enough, it has a contrast of 3.9:1 with the surrounding text and can be identified as being different from the surrounding text by people with all types of color vision deficiency, including those individuals who cannot see color at all. In addition to the contrast difference, the links have :focus and :hover styles that reintroduce the underline when the links receive keyboard focus or when a mouse pointer hovers over them. Hover or focus style changes alone are not sufficient to meet the criterion.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/working-examples/link-contrast/

The following 26 web-safe colors pass at 3:1 vs black and 5:1 vs. white

From what I can tell Google, Wikipedia, and PF do in fact meet the actual standards. Just not your individual preference, which you are pushing as though it were something more. They appear to all be using the technique G183 explicitly given in the industry standard as a specifically allowed means of being accessible.

Underlines are not required for accessibility.

 

[Dale]

Is PF a link-heavy site?

In my brief look at a number of sites the other day, I noticed most sites don't underline every link, but they do for links in a block of text where the visual indicators help them stand out from the surrounding text.

@Dale, does the underlining on a site like Ars Technica cause you problems?

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...have-been-as-uniformly-massive-as-we-thought/

Their underlining is better than most because the underline is separated from the baseline of the text by a greater distance than most. So it makes less "interference" with the text. Even the "g" does not intersect the underline. I don't find it difficult to read like I often do with closer underlines.

 

[robphy]

I have just come from Wikipedia. They use the same style as PF: they only underline links on rollover.

Shame on them.

Here are some sites you might like a little better:

• https://physics.stackexchange.com/ (you have to find a post with hyperlinks in the text or comments)
• https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/ (you have to find a post with hyperlinks in the text or comments)
• https://gregbernhardt.com/

 

[DaveC426913]

It requires some non-color difference. This could be underlining, but it could also be bold, luminosity, or anything else.

OK, let's do that, then

 

[Dale]

I think we already do

 

[DaveC426913]

I think we already do

Links in body text are currently distinguished by colour alone.

 

[Dale]

Links in body text are currently distinguished by colour alone.

It appears to me that they are currently distinguished by both color and brightness, as per G183.

@Greg Bernhardt can you tell us what color values are used for background, text, and hyperlinks (without the focus)? In light and dark mode?

 

[DaveC426913]

It appears to me that they are currently distinguished by both color and brightness, as per G183.

Contrast between body and link text would pass against a white background but it fails against PF's light grey background.

https://webaim.org/resources/linkcontrastchecker/

 

[Dale]

@Greg Bernhardt I agree with @DaveC426913 that your color scheme should be made accessible, if it is not already. I am not sure the values he has posted are correct, but if they are then PF is sitting at just slightly less than the minimum contrast between links and body text.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not sure the values he has posted are correct,

Some links, such as visited links, might be a slightly different colour, so you have to be careful what you're choosing.

This is how to check the colours:

I seem to be having a bit of trouble duplicating my findings. PF is trying to make liar out of me...

For the above example rgb(69,97,135) converts to #456187, which passes:
https://webaim.org/resources/linkcontrastchecker/?fcolor=000000&bcolor=EBEBEB&lcolor=456187

I fear I may have submitted my results in post 65 without double-checking them, and I didn't record from where I took my sample.

 

[Dale]

I seem to be having a bit of trouble duplicating my findings.

No worries, Greg should weigh in because he is the one who can fix it if needed.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

@Greg Bernhardt I agree with @DaveC426913 that your color scheme should be made accessible, if it is not already. I am not sure the values he has posted are correct, but if they are then PF is sitting at just slightly less than the minimum contrast between links and body text.

I have no argument against this. I'll schedule some time to look at this.

 

[AlexB23]

Guys. Here is a solution to this long going debate. Just put a toggle button in user settings to allow users to toggle underlines on or off.

Mic drop.

 

[DaveC426913]

Guys. Here is a solution to this long going debate. Just put a toggle button in user settings to allow users to toggle underlines on or off.

Don't need to. Individual customization is already available. Users have control over their own browsers if they want to change their own settings. (A couple of members have made this point.)

The point is: when a site sets their default state, do they cater to those who already have excellent vision and ideal viewing conditions, or do they cater to them and a wider audience?

It's a little like ramps into street front stores. Steps are usable only by those who can step. Ramps can be used by everyone. Do you cater to the mobile, and tell those who are less mobile to just carry their own ramps around with them?

 

[jrmichler]

I am slightly color blind, to the point where I can just barely pass an FAA 2nd class flight physical. That vision deficiency has been constant since my first flight physical over 50 years ago. I can only see PF hyperlinks when I have previous knowledge of their existence, and know exactly where to look. I vote for underlining.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I've aligned post link color with the rest of UI link color. I think it helps. Any thoughts?

 

[Dale]

I've aligned post link color with the rest of UI link color. I think it helps. Any thoughts?

It looks the same to me, but I use dark mode. As long as it passes the criteria it should be fine

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It looks the same to me, but I use dark mode. As long as it passes the criteria it should be fine

ah yes, this was for light mode

 

[DaveC426913]

I've aligned post link color with the rest of UI link color. I think it helps. Any thoughts?

That does look a little better, yes.

 

[Dale]

That does look a little better, yes.

Does it meet the AA level requirement?

 

[AlexB23]

Don't need to. Individual customization is already available. Users have control over their own browsers if they want to change their own settings. (A couple of members have made this point.)

The point is: when a site sets their default state, do they cater to those who already have excellent vision and ideal viewing conditions, or do they cater to them and a wider audience?

It's a little like ramps into street front stores. Steps are usable only by those who can step. Ramps can be used by everyone. Do you cater to the mobile, and tell those who are less mobile to just carry their own ramps around with them?

Agreed 100%. The default state should be underlined. If people do not want underlined, they can go into the settings.

Plus, if a person decides to use blue text, how can one know if a hyperlink is inserted? Actually, if you want to mess with the forums, set your text color as blue.

 

[berkeman]

Actually, if you want to mess with the forums, set your text color as blue.

Most likely the helpful Mentors would notice and reset the font color to default. (And they would maybe send a friendly DM asking the user not to do that...)

 

[Dale]

The default state should be underlined.

That is a fine personal opinion to have. My personal opinion is the opposite.

 

[AlexB23]

Most likely the helpful Mentors would notice and reset the font color to default. (And they would maybe send a friendly DM asking the user not to do that...)

Haha, true. Thank you for keeping our site running smoothly.

That is a fine personal opinion to have. My personal opinion is the opposite.

Hey, that is the beauty of life. We all have different opinions. I respect yours.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does it meet the AA level requirement?

It meets A level. Just.

I have not actually found any guidelines about body text v. link text contrast for AA level.

I find guidelines about body text v. link text contrast for A level (3.0:1).
I find guidelines about background v. link text contrast for AA level (4.5:1).
But not both simultaneously.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you sure you want to open the accessibility can of worms?

Because it's a pretty big can...

 

[Dale]

Are you sure you want to open the accessibility can of worms?

Greg will have to make that choice. I was just asking.

As far as I can tell, government sites in the US will be required to implement AA standards by 24 April 2026. Private sites are already required to be accessible, but no specific standard is mandated.