This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. (September 2012.)

Draft

For many years, there has been a growing trend for editors to "prettify" their signatures, adding color, fancy fonts, and making it unclear which part of the sig links to their user, or talk pages, or other targets.

This has implications for accessibility, particularly for users who have visual or cognitive disabilities.

This draft guideline suggests ways in which you can make your sig more accessible, and thus comply with WCAG web accessibility guidelines.

• remove non-standard colouring
  • if you must use non-standard colouring, make sure that it has sufficient contrast between text and background; see MOS:COLOR
• avoid non-standard fonts or effects, such as those intended to replicate handwriting, or add blurring; especially at small sizes
• identify the targets of links clearly; do not link the first half of one word (such as your username) to one page, and the second half to another
• don't use "leet" (such as ∈תMρŁ€), which makes it hard or impossible to search for the user name, and which does not sound like the user name when read out by screen readers
• …