I am colorblind, which means that frequently red and black are indistinguishable for me; the default styles, including the one I selected, apparently include styles that use red links contrasted with black text, with no secondary indicator of links, and so I'm unable to actually navigate blog posts.

I have found out how to change the color, but even so there are a variety of forms of colorblindness and I would appreciate being able to have my links underlined, as even changing my link color to blue would still present accessibility problems for some people, which I have not been able to find a setting for.

It would also be quite helpful if the default themes were checked for accessibility and so choosing from the default settings would not have a situation like this where it is extremely difficult to use the site.

Further addition, I found out how to add custom CSS to underline my links; so that isn't a problem, though a more user-friendly option would be greatly appreciated for anyone else who doesn't have friends who know CSS, and I'm still concerned that this is a problem amongst uncustomized styles, as not everyone is quite as dedicated to making sure I can read their blog.

 

As you surely know, there are many types of color blindness and many types of visual issues from people needing low color contrast to people needing as few lines as possible on the screen and vice versa. It would be impossible for us to make themes which everybody would be comfortable with. We would always have to favor one category of users over others. That is why we try to offer a wide choice of styles and themes -- we currently have 27 styles and over 450 themes -- and let people customize them quite extensively. You obviously already know how to customize the colors of your theme but here are a few things you may not know:

-- If you like your current style but would like to use a theme whose colors are better suited to you, you can see all the themes which are associated to one style by clicking on its name at the Customize page (in your case: http://www.dreamwidth.org/customize/?layoutid=165554&show=all).

-- If you'd like to be able to browse styles and themes by color instead, you can use a third-party tool one of our volunteers made and which we plan on integrating to our official pages: http://styles.memewidth.org/.

-- You can preview themes before you select them by clicking on the preview button which is in the upper right corner of every thumbnail shown at http://www.dreamwidth.org/customize/. It'll show you exactly what your journal would look like if you used the theme.

-- Official styles and themes are made by users. You can submit your own at http://dreamscapes.dreamwidth.org/.

-- To make sure every Dreamwidth blog is readable to you, we have an option which lets you view any journal in your own style. It's the 'Journal View Style' option at http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/settings/?cat=display.

As for underlining links you're correct that we don't have a user-friendly option which would let you do this. I've linked you to the FAQ explaining how to suggest improvements if you'd like this to become an option.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
ninetydegrees

…because I feel like it!

:P

I wrote some of this as a point about relationships last night for Devyn, so I’ll start by quoting what I wrote (sans personal stuff, you guys only get the theory :P)

Because it seems like the obvious thing to do would be to try to tell normative relationship models to go fuck themselves if they don’t seem like they’d work.

Because I mean that’s sort of seemed like the obvious extension of polyness to me? Like mononormativity is like “There is one Special Class of relationships and it has all these traits and other types of interpersonal relationships don’t have these traits” And I mean, fuck that, obviously.

Which basically it’s the way society divides relationships that I want to break down.

Because, it seems like the way mononormativity works is there’s two, maybe a few more, but mostly two major classes of relationships.  First, you have the Serious Romantic Relationship, it generally consists of romantic attraction, sexual attraction, and a relatively overt degree of identification and commitment (and by commitment here I mean “you will put an effort into making this relationship work”; I know also because of mononormativity commitment and monogamy are often conflated >.<). 

You’re also expected to only have one of it, and it’s expected to have all these parts.  Also it is Serious Business.  Though I have noticed a lot of motifs where actually having a strong friendship with the person is considered optional.  Which is probably a symptom of homosocial norms (ie men hang out with men, women hang out with women type things.)

Now, in addition to this type of relationship, you have everything else.  Other relationships are supposed to be not sexual and not romantic.  Really the definitions are a lot looser here I think, though some degree of commitment probably is involved.  They’re also less Serious Business, which is probably why society has been a lot looser at defining them. (Not that there aren’t tropes for them, like BFFs or bromance or the like, they’re definitely discussed.)

But basically the obvious extension to rejecting the idea that There Can Only Be One with regards to Serious Romantic Relationships, is that really, there’s no reason to accept the validity of the definition as a whole period.  This is especially clear to me also I am somewhat less sexual than normative, which tends to me quite honestly I don’t particularly care one way or another about sexual interactions. (There’s also a varying degree of sexuality in interactions, obviously; it’s not always clear where said boundaries are, either, and I do like certain types of physical interactions that are less sexual quite a bit.  But that is yet another rant.)

Basically, if I take the sexual requirement and the monogamy requirement out of the Serious Romantic Relationship, and can include sexuality in nonromantic relationships, it becomes increasingly clear that you could easily also add romantic attraction to a non-SSR, at which point the distinction rapidly becomes meaningless, and it becomes apparent that, fuck this, you might as well make your own categories, mixing and matching tropes from other types of relationships society likes to insist are the Only Way.

So anyway the obvious practical result of this theory is that we (that is me and Devyn) went and created a new category because we didn’t think the ones that existed did want we wanted, and we ended up calling it “brain twins” because we seem to have weirdly-but-awesomely similar problems and histories.

And for some further areas this could be expanded on, I didn’t really touch much on family either, which I think is probably an important element of this, I haven’t had too extensive identification of people as my family so I’m not super experienced at this.  Obviously the main tropes with family seems to be you’re supposed to be commited to them (whether you like them or not, which, obviously is a prime thing for abuse) and that you’re genetically similar to them, or they are your One Serious Romantic Relationship.

Nor did I touch on heteronormativity or, for that matter, how cissexism contributes to this (Serious Romantic Relationships are always between One Man and One Woman and obviously we can always readily tell who’s a man and who’s a woman and who’s one person and nobody’s anything else) or how commitment goes from being a healthy thing (“Let’s put some effort into resolve conflicts!”) to an extremely unhealthy thing (“Care about your family! Wait what your parents are abusive? YOU STILL MUST CARE ABOUT THEM THEY REALLY LOVE YOU.”) in the hands of kyriarchy.

(Dreamwidth edit: I figure if Tumblr is going to keep sucking I am going to start crossposting everything over here too.  And I like this post so I'll probably edit it a bit and then Wordpress it :P)