Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

You are here: main page >Collaborations >WikiProjects >Accessibility > Main discussion page

WikiProject Accessibility
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Accessibility, a group of editors promoting better access for disabled or otherwise disadvantaged users. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page.
 

RFC: spacing of mixed fractions[edit]

An RFC has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Spacing of mixed numbers in relation to the spacing between the whole number and the fraction in mixed fractions (e.g., 1 23). As this involves accessibility issues on the presentation of such numbers (for example, screen readers may have difficulty parsing the number correctly without a space), I have posted this here to invite further comments from interested Wikipedians. sroc 💬 05:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Complex infographics[edit]

Complex infographics giving a large number of facts, like File:Human Aquatic Adaptations.png, used in Aquatic ape hypothesis; and File:Human Running Adaptations.png in Endurance running hypothesis, are being discussed at:

Your comments would be welcomed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Page length[edit]

2013 in film is 332,397 bytes (without images). Please discuss whether or not to sub-divide it, at Talk:2013 in film#Length. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC on left-aligned images[edit]

Hi. Please be aware that a discussion is going on at WT:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment, asking whether the portion of the guideline advising against placing left-aligned images directly below level-3 subheadings ought to be removed. The consensus so far is overwhelmingly in favour of removing this recommendation, though some objections have been raised on accessibility grounds. People here who have insights on the accessibility ramifications of this proposed change might wish to go comment on the RFC. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Opendyslexic font?[edit]

Hello,

I suggested a few months ago to a dyslexic friend of mine (a Web accessibility expert, well known in France and Belgium) to have a look at the "opendyslexic functionality" that had been implemented. I suspect it was removed with the "universal language selector" (sorry, I can't remember the proper name).

She was a bit disappointed because the font did not correct her main concerns. She suggested to shorten the lines, to increase the line heights and spaces between the paragraphs. She was also complaining that the default font size required a zoom of 130% to become readable for her.

Where could I forward those informations to the devs?

Thank you! GChagnon (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You could use the email address listed on the OpenDyslexic website, in case you haven't already done so. Graham87 02:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK Nominations[edit]

I've raised a concern with the accessibility of the formatting used for "Did You Know" nominations; please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Formatting and bullets. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist's "green bullet" (page updated since last visit) feature inaccessible[edit]

a report has been loggged in the Village Pump's technical section which details the technical (and resultant end-user) problems posed by the use of purely visual indicators to denote the status of items which appear in document divisions marked class=mw-changeslist in the rendered document source for the Wikipedia Watchlist... the report was sparked by the following prose, which appears in the second paragraph of the introductory text for the Watchlist, immediately preceding the "Mark all pages as visited" button in the document's reading-order:

Pages that have been changed since you last visited them are shown with a green bullet.

the report details why this "feature" is inaccessible to the blind, as well as those with color vision deficiencies -- in particular: monochromacy, achromatopsia, red-green color-blindness, tritanopia and tritanomaly... it also specifies violations -- inherent in the feature's design and implementation -- of the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and Wikipedia's own Manual of Style... this "feature" should never have been implemented on Wikipedia, and the clear and obvious problems identified in the report at the Village Pump should have been detected and corrected by those who construct and vet the templates for Wikipedia -- their failure to do so is inexcusable.... therefore, means of immediately rectifying the problem -- and preventing a recurrance of the mplementation such a "feature" in the future -- have been provided via the Village Pump technical report...

the "feature", as defined by the style rules contained in code conatined in divs marked class="mw-changeslist", cannot be made accessible with any existing (or emerging) technology, because images inserted using list-style-image are cannot currently be programmatically associated with textual equivalents, such as the use of the native HTML attribute alt or by use of ARIA's aria-label or aria-labelledby, and therefore needs to be re-engineered and replaced, either through the scripted, rather than a CSS-generated, insertion of an image into the document source to indicate that the listed item has changed since the user's last visit using the IMG/alt tandem oedipus (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:TOC and ignoring accessibility[edit]

People are ignoring "If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing. See the last line in the information about elements of the lead section." They state this can be ignored for any reason and no consensus was ever had on this matter. A call for a RFC is at User talk:Bgwhite#TOCs. Bgwhite (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent font change - type face[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#Font size and style for more info.

To change back to the old style (sans-serif style in Vector).....

Go to Preferences → Gadgets → Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin)
-- Moxy (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Moxy, the main reason for changing fonts was for accessibility. The font size and line height have been increased. Those with vision problems, like me, no longer have to increase the browser's font size. Also, the new style is what the end reader will see. If you are doing tables, images or other things to certain sizes or placements, the end reader will see something different than what you see. I keep running into that problem with editors. Bgwhite (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As has been mentioned at the link above by many, readability has diminished because of the font style. Thus the reason for this notification. I aslo have vision problems and the style is a problem for me - size is good though. -- Moxy (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC on use of plainlist[edit]

There is an RfC on whether to use the {{Plainlist}} template for lists in the infobox at Talk:Michaëlle Jean #RfC: Should the lists in the infobox use the Plainlist template?. As this is essentially a question of accessibility, I am placing a notification here as the relevant WikiProject. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User warning for inaccessible sigs[edit]

I have created a level one warning template, {{Uw-sigdesign1}}, which reads:

Information icon Hello, I'm [Username]. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising sigs. Thank you.

where "of low colour contrast, an unreadable font, or suchlike" can be replaced by |1= and "Thank you" by |2=.

I invite comment about its content and deployment, including the possibility of using it in twinkle, on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviations[edit]

The accessibility of abbreviations of "circa" is being discussed here. Your thoughts would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Background colours on templates[edit]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color (WP:COLOR) states:

Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color blind. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible.

This is very sensible advice.

Some templates use background colours, e.g., to highlight discussions that have closed. For example, {{cfd top}} uses #bff9fc, {{sfp top}} uses #99ff99, {{sfp nocreate}} uses #ff9999, and so on (I am indebted to David Levy for researching these). This is not an issue when writing in black text, provided that these provide a contrast ratio of at least 4.50:1 as is required for "AA" level compliance. However, this can become an issue when using text in other colours, such as links (#002bb8) and formatting applied by templates such as {{xt}} (#006400) and {{!xt}} (#8B0000) where the contrast ratio falls below this level.

This has become an issue in a discussion at Template talk:Tq#RfC: Change the TQ template font colour where is it proposed to change the colour of the {{tq}} template (currently #008000) because of its similarity to the {{xt}} template, but it is difficult resolving on a specific colour because they all clash with background colours used on various templates.

I would suggest that templates should avoid using such background colours, except in a very light range, as this substantially restricts the ability to use font colours without breaking accessibility. For example, the {{sfp top}} template could use the bright green in the background of the header (where the predefined text is all black and red) and use the same colour for borders around the closed discussion, but leave the background behind the discussion as transparent (or a very light shade that would not interfere with any text colours) in order to preserve accessibility regardless of what font styles are used in the discussion.

Should this be introduced as a policy or guideline for all templates? sroc 💬 06:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disability Access Issues with Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, I hope the question at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Disability Access Issues with Wikipedia might be of your interest. Thanks···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 09:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Tagging images for color problems[edit]

We have Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users, but that only identifies the whole article as having one or more problematic images. It would be useful to have an image-specific method, tagging the specific file(s) that are the problem. That way someone interested in fixing this sort of problem doesn't have to scan a whole article to figure out what images are problematic, and images that are used in multiple articles are tagged centrally. Perhaps a Category:Images not understandable by color blind users (as a subcat of Category:Images requiring maintenance) with a {{Cleanup image}} message displayed on the image description page? DMacks (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a counterpart to Category:Articles with accessibility problems such as Category:Images with accessibility problems and maybe also Category:Templates with accessibility problems? John Carter (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's a first attempt at the tag: {{Cleanup image accessibility}}. Category:Images with accessibility problems sounds nicer (no need to be more specific in its name for now). DMacks (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
With no further comments, I made {{Cleanup image accessibility}}. Category:Images with accessibility problems blue and will start using them. Obviously anyone is welcome to continue to adjust the wordings. See also the next section, where I ponder where the guidelines for color should actually be written... DMacks (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unifying information about use of color in images[edit]

WP:COLOR redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color, part of the official Wikipedia MOS realm. It talks in detail about use of color for text, but only mentions briefly the general principle for images. Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users has detailed information for images, including specific examples of sets of colors. It's the same set of principles and underlying issues to solve in all cases--the only difference is whether it gets implemented in a graphics editor or in wikitext/html. And now that we have {{pie chart}} and other on-the-fly graphics generation, that distinction is becoming fuzzy. While working on a template for #Tagging images for color problems, I could not find the tips and image guidelines anywhere except on the category page. It was especially surprising that I couldn't find it anywhere obvious in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, which is where {{Cleanup image}} instructs readers to go for "image...quality standards".

Proposal: move the intro from the category page into the MOS so that both the guidelines and tips for implementing them are in a single, unified place. Then the cat (and other places that need to refer to accessible color use in any context) can just point to it. As the tools change, only one set of external links needs to be updated. DMacks (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Accessibility at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of transcript from Signpost article[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/Exclusive about the removal of a transcript from a Signpost article featuring an audio interview. —Neotarf (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)