Accessibility?

[ghost]

First off, thanks for this resource. Incredibly helpful.

Any interest in adding a high-contrast theme, ie, one that ticks the WCAG contrast guidelines as closely as possible within the confines of the way Bulma does things? Some of the ones here already are way closer than the Bulma default, but they aren't quite there yet I think. This would obviously look way worse from the design standpoint, but it could be a huge service for users.

[jenil]

hey @ffmike, do you have suggestions on themes which are close enough and we can handle them on a case by case basis?

[ghost]

I ran all of the theme sample pages through the https://www.checkmycolours.com/ online checking tool. Here are the number of accessibility failures of each theme, as measured by contrast ratio:

cerulean: 529
default: 533
journal: 533
materia: 607
spacelab: 631
litera: 727
lumen: 741
cosmo: 745
sandstone: 1643
yeti: 1797
simplex: 1834
pulse: 1842
flatly: 1855
lux: 1866
united: 1941
minty: 1999
nuclear: 2799
darkly: 2857
slate: 2925
superhero: 3015
cyborg: 3067
solar: 3634

Obviously there are a lot of redundant checks here - if Title1 fails on contrast, so will Title2, Title3, etc.

Based on these numbers, 'cerulean' has the fewest failures, so it'd be the most reasonable starting point. It seems to me that a reasonable path forward would be to define a new 'highcontrastlight' that would start as a clone of 'cerulean' and then work to tweak it into a higher-contrast set of colors that passes the WCAG contrast tests (or at least gets sufficiently close to be useful to users who need the contrast).

I'm not sure why the dark themes are getting such bad scores. That's a problem for another day, though. Might be a failing of the checking tool.

If that sounds like a reasonable plan to you I could clone the repo and see how far I can get.

[jenil]

Hey @ffmike Sorry for getting back on this so late.

I think it definitely sounds reasonable and I'm happy to review a PR for this!