Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility

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

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.

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)


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)

Template:Color contrast ratio[edit]

I think there should be some few words in Template:Color contrast ratio template about the ratio - what ratio is good and what is bad (kinf of from x to y: AAA, d to f: AA, h to r: A, j to l: NO). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a section including a somewhat simplified table to the template documentation. Hopefully it should be a help to editors in deciding what's usable. --RexxS (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
See also the table I added to Template:Color contrast visible/doc#HTML colors. 18:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks good. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Images placed mid-sentence[edit]

I've highlighted an accessibility concern at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Splitting sentences. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Linkdump - accessibility and usability[edit]

mw:Accessibility and usability cleanup - hopefully useful for any of us that engage in cleanup work over the coming [timespan]. I think it lists all the main pages, but please add anything I've missed. Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility improvements RfC at Infobox musical artist[edit]

At Template talk:Infobox musical artist an RfC has been created by one editor who has reverted the mention of flatlist as an accessible improvement over comma separated values. Despite the clear consensus established on this kind of issue at Talk:Michaëlle Jean#RfC: Should the lists in the infobox use the Plainlist template?, it seems that we have to re-state the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists #List styles again. More eyes would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Feedback request (WPTC track maps)[edit]

A discussion pertaining to WP:COLOR is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color compliance. Feedback from knowledgeable or interested editors is welcome. -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with dark Wikipedia skins[edit]

An example of the sort of colour scheme I'm describing - maybe even a bit darker for the background

I need a dark background for reading and editing Wikipedia, because light backgrounds strain my eyes. A dark grey background with light-to-medium grey text is the most appropriate (white text hurts my eyes), with links that have a high lightness and low saturation (I'm using the words GIMP gives me - I hope they are describing what I mean correctly).

For context, this is the help desk query that brought me here.

So, looking at the current stage of support for various ways of getting this done, would I be able to request that somebody with the skills to do it create a skin (preferably for Vector) that fits my description? The other methods are not adequate for comfortable use of Wikipedia. It would be most appreciated.

If it was possible to invert everything except images, then lighten the resultant black background a bit and change the text colours, that might be one way to get around any problems with formulae and so on. Anyway, I'm sure I'm not the only user with this problem.

Thank you all for your help; and let's keep Wikipedia awesome! Thennicke (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes there are other users who reported the same issue as yours. For example, User:Axl is using the green on black gadget.
Unfortunately, I think it's impossible to invert colours with CSS. Or at least it's beyond my abilities. The browser itself can do it as you know, but then the images get inevitably altered too...
Two years ago I helped to maintain the "green on black skin" gadget. I also thought that a light grey on dark gray skin would be much more pleasant.
The code for the green on black gadget that was pointed to you is here : MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css. It works on vector too, except for the vector-specific features... The "discussion, history, edit..." buttons at the top of the page, and the editing toolbar show in normal contrast.
We could use this code as a starting point. All we need to do is change the values of colours (replacing green with light gray, and black with dark gray), after all.
I also made a draft at the bottom of my own User:Dodoïste/vector.css for a vector compatible green on black skin. It's not very far from completion...
I really think you should file a MediaWiki bug. This problem is experienced by a very large number of readers. The website should offer easy to enable or disable other colour schemes for readers too. Dodoïste (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to do a "light grey on dark gray skin", could you tell me the precise colours (Web colors#Hex triplet) you would like to have ? Dodoïste (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Salut, Dodoïste! - I've made a start at reversing colours in css just to see how practical it is. The problem is that editors insist on coding background colours in-line, especially inside tables, so there are a lot of pages where this doesn't work well. But out of interest, Thennicke you could try copying & pasting the following into your Special:MyPage/skin.css:
body, div#column-content, div#footer, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, #searchBody, div#content, #bodyContent,, .mw-code, textarea, div.editOptions {
  background-color:#222; color:#BBB;

a, #p-personal li a {

a:visited {
where I've assumed a light grey (#BBB) on a dark grey background (#222) - make the numbers smaller for darker, or bigger for lighter (0-9, A-F). I've set the links as light blue (#CCF) or light red when visited (#FCC). You can preview what it looks like before saving, and change the values to suit your monitor and vision. I don't think I've caught all the elements on a page, but it's a start that can be built on if anyone is interested in trying it out. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Bugs 64731 and 24070 are the two bugs for this issue that I could find on Bugzilla. Because the bugs are already reported, I didn't add another duplicate.
Thank you for your help, but because this feature is so poorly supported (the simple code provided above gave me a completely unreadable home-page, with light-grey text on white), I'm actually going to be better off using an unmodified Vector, and just lowering my screen brightness to try and deal with the issue. Because I am just your typical end-user, this is as far as I am going to go in this process; if anybody here who is more involved in development wants to notify people that there is a demand for this feature, please do. Once again, thank you to everybody who helped me out here. Hopefully in the next few months there will be a dark, grey-based Vector skin up and running for users like myself. Thennicke (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thennicke : Hey, no, don't leave ! We're going to do just that, a grey-based Vector skin.
But please understand that it will take several days and iterations. RexxS code just above was only a testcase for the color choices. It was nowhere supposed to be functional. We need to know if the colors chosen in RexxS's testcase are a suitable choice for you. If it is, we can develop a skin based on this set of colors.
Hi RexxS, nice to see you. I hope you're doing fine! ;-) Dodoïste (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi RexxS, sorry you couldn't make it yesterday - next is 21 September.
All: here are two links that I often use when choosing colours. Colorizer allows you to choose colours in any of four different methods; you can type in values, pull the sliders about, or both. Unfortunately it doesn't calculate contrast or give a WCAG level, so I also use Snook's Colour Contrast Check - there are fewer ways of choosing a colour, but it does tell you if a combination is WCAG 2 AAA Compliant or not. From this, I find that for a purely greyscale screen, the lightest background that gives WCAG 2 AAA Compliance for white text is #595959 which looks like this and the darkest text colour that gives WCAG 2 AAA Compliance for black background is #959595 which looks like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A test with the colours given.
Ok, if you all insist on being so helpful, here are some colours that I think work well for my eyes, based on some tests in a word processor:
  • Background: #333333
  • Text: #cccccc
  • Link: #94bd5e
  • Visited link: #6e9d30
These colours don't fit the contrast standards, but contrast is not what I'm after. These colours are comfortable to me. Do you require any others? (As far as I can see, Wikipedia only really has 4 main colours) Thanks.
Thennicke (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thennicke: Thanks, that's a good starting point. There is another colour, the links to nonexistent pages (red links). Do you wish to keep the red colour, or would you prefer another ?
The contrast for the chosen colors are fine for personal use. But visited links might be difficult to distinguish from regular links. Dodoïste (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Something like #F39494 would probably be a good colour for redlinks. Also, I am aware of the difficulty with distinguishing the green links; I tried to play around with the visited link colour for a while, and it's still a way off. If you keep #49bd5e and change #6e9d30 to be more suitable, that would be cool. I don't know how you'd do it, but if you find the difference in lightness between Wikipedia's default link colours, you might be able to apply the same function to #94bd5e. Thennicke (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thennicke, I'm working on this skin, and I've done most of the job. I still need to work on specific areas such as the logo, left and top navigation menus, the revision history, diffs, the preferences menu, the watchlist, the notifications feature... My draft is at User:Dodoïste/vector.css. Dodoïste (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I am following this development with interest. I use the green-on-black skin. It is somewhat garish, although I am used to it. More importantly, I am unable to view many diagrams properly—often the labels or lines do not appear. Also, I am unable to view the WP:GAN pages, and I have stopped undertaking GA reviews as a result. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Axl ! :-) I'm focusing my efforts on the new skin currently, but I'll be glad to help you out once I'm done with this. However, I'm sure you could find many other people to help you solve specific problems such as the GA reviews pages. It's quite simple to do for people who knows CSS, and there are many such users in the Wikipedia community. Have you ever tried Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) ? Dodoïste (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. No, I did not try Village pump (technical). I commented here in 2013, but one person who responded could not help. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Axl: Looking at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/New Proposals for GAN, Part II#Axl, Aircorn seems to be unable to work out how you see green on black; but in that thread, I can't see any mention of the "Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin" gadget. It's at Preferences → Gadgets, second from bottom of the "Appearance" section, but is only listed there if you have saved your preferences since selecting the MonoBook skin at Preferences → Appearance. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I realised that by following Thennicke's original link. I tried asking for help before and it didn't work out. (We are all volunteers here so I don't feel entitled.) I shall carry on contributing to Wikipedia in my own way. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Dodoïste, I tried out the skin, and it's looking really good so far! Lots of bugs pulled over from the base skin, of course, but a great start. I'm particularly liking the look of plain article text. Thank you so much for putting the effort into this. I noticed that external links are still light blue, and I'd propose a lighter green to replace them (#a9bd8e?).
By the way, I recently found this, which might be of interest to all. Thennicke (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thennicke : I'm pleased to hear that you like it! :-) It's almost complete now, I think you can start using the skin at User:Dodoïste/vector.css. Let's say the skin is in beta version, and you can start reporting bugs. By the way, I did not define a color for visited external links and visited interwikis. Do you wish to have one ?
What I still need to do:
  1. Change the color background of current (selected) tabs at the top of the page (article, discussion, edit, etc.). The color should be the same as the main background color, to keep the same interaction design as Vector. The image is in base64, and I'm having a difficult time to change it.
  2. Same problem with the preferences page.
  3. Every new feature Vector has (there are several).
RexxS, could you help me with the tasks 1) and 2) ? I guess as a designer you have experience with base64 images ?
It is expected that some templates and fancy layout will stay in light background and dark text. Especially in the userspace and community space. We should create a task force to encourage Wikipedians to not specify text color and background color with inline CSS, and change these templates. It is a very long task. Dodoïste (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Salut Dodoïste! I've not had much time to try things out, but a small grey image (4x4px #333333) is encoded as:
So if you use that for #mw-page-base, #mw-head { , you get the same background heading all the way to the top of the page. Did you intend the same for the all the tabs? I'll have another look tomorrow.
There's a useful online resource for encoding images into base64 at
It occurs to me that we normally only use the Data URI scheme for making gradients or complex backgrounds. I think you ought to be able to get the same effect by setting #mw-page-base, #mw-head { background-image:none; background-color:#3333; }, but I'll check later. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Dodoïste, I've been using the skin for a few weeks now, and I've found 3 or 4 bugs on Wikipedia. On other projects, there are all sorts of clashes (see main page of Wikiversity for example). However, on Wikipedia, it's already suitable for my daily use. Well done! Here's a list of things that I've noticed, in rough order of importance:
  • Block quotes are unreadable (e.g. Spanish Revolution)
  • Mathematical formulae... I know these are tricky to fix, but they look horrible. (e.g. Pi)
  • Gallery images have large blocks of white around them (e.g. Bombard#Gallery page)
  • Chemical formulae are dark, though still readable (e.g. Triclosan)
Thanks! Thennicke (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Language template TfD[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere

Several {{Lang-xx-YY}} templates have been nominated for deletion. They are grouped together near the top of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13. Some respondents there have made accessibility (e.g. screen reader) arguments regarding such templates, so participants here may be interested in those TfDs, pro or con.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

See also related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Using "lang-x" template or simple wikilinking and formatting (which links further to more related threads).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:SMcCandlish. Thanks for creating a debate around this issue. I can't find "en-GB" in the official language subtag registry. If it's not a standardized subtag, I do not understand how it can be useful as a metadata subtag. Maybe I'm missing something? The discussion on that deletion proposal is veeery long, I did not read most of it. Dodoïste (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dodoïste: Region subtags are actually a W3C recommendation arising out of RFC 3066 - you can find detail at:
Hope that helps, RexxS (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks RexxS, it does help me to understand. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Animated gifs of text[edit]

Most if not all of the images in Template:Wikipedia-adnavbox are animated text adverts for wikiprojects. How should we respond? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Simplest way is to set the alt text for the image to something sensible for screen readers and for those who have images disabled. I've made an attempt at that. Is that good enough? --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
OMFG ! It happened. <blink> zombies are coming to get you, run for your life! Dodoïste (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No, don't blink. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Well... Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Animations, animated GIFs should not exceed 5 seconds. Or they should be equipped with control functions (play/pause). The most important thing is the ability to pause them, as it can be very distracting for some users...
I believe we should discourage the creation of animated adverts. I guess they will not like this answer, and it might be hard to convince them to stop... Dodoïste (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I feel the same, but you know how folks can behave when they've invested time and effort into something. At least they supplied advice on how to turn the ads off - by putting the following into Special:MyPage/common.css:
.qxz-ads { display: none !important; }
Although that's unavailable to readers who are not registered editors; i.e. 99% of visitors will see the ads whether they want to or not. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It gets worse; see: {{Wikipedia ads}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I first came across the {{Wikipedia ads}} template when I made this edit. It's not in my change: look below the "Revision as of 14:35, 8 September 2014" heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)