On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Till Rettig <till.ret...@gmx.de> wrote: > Patrick McCarty schrieb: >> >> I have considered keeping the soft blue for the links, but here are my >> two main reasons for changing to the more "pure" blue: >> >> - The current blue (#3465a4) does not pass the WCAG 1.0 against a >> white background. Based on experience, the new blue definitely >> increases readability, even though the current "soft blue" might be a >> *nicer* color. Since LilyPond's documentation is so extensive, I >> think the increase in readability is a plus. > > Yes it's true about readability, but what if there would be stille some blue > 'in between'. Maybe it is only my lcd screen?
Well, it looks okay on my laptop, but I'll have another look and see what I can do. >> - With the current soft blue, it is difficult to distinguish *links* >> from *black text* if link underlining is turned off in the browser. >> Since the new blue is more contrasting with the black text in >> div#main, this would no longer be an issue. >> > > what if they would be underlined in the text? One could argue that if the > user want's to switch it off he can distinguish also more subtle > contrasts... Ah, good point. The whole idea of link underlining in the first place is to increase accessibility. Thanks, Patrick _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
