Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 
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.
 
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


List marker types[edit]

I've reverted the bold addition of the sentence "Likewise, do not switch between list marker types (e.g. asterisks and colons), unless embedding lists starting at the highest level." partly because it was not discussed beforehand, partly because the last clause is ambiguous. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd approve of a change like that. I think the last part of the sentence refers to nesting lists; for example, using "*" and "*:" as the first and second levels, respectively, rather than "*" and "::". Graham87 14:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
[ec] If you find the wording ambiguous, please feel free to improve it, but there is no requirement to discuss edits before they are made (WP:BOLD and WP:DNRNC refer). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There was also no reason to revert me once I had started this thread (WP:BRD refers). You were WP:BOLD, I don't dispute that - I even acknowledged it early in my post above. I do dispute your call of WP:DNRNC because I didn't 'revert due solely to "no consensus"', see my post above. I didn't say so at the time, but I had noticed that you made your original edit six minutes after making this comment, which since WP:LISTGAP previously said nothing at all about "using asterisks below asterisks, and colons below colons", seems like altering the rules to suit your own viewpoint. TfD is a hostile place: please don't make it more so. Now, when it comes to list markup, I'm all in favour of accessibility - you will often find me removing blank lines in the middle of indented threads (as here) - but I don't see why a TfD discussion cannot be marked up as follows:
*'''Keep''' because etc.
*'''Delete''' because etc.
*:Comment on vote
*::Comment on comment
*'''Merge''' with X because etc.
This keeps the main list - a list of !votes each as a bullet - as a single three-item list; it has a sublist (which itself has a sublist) that although of a different type does not terminate and restart the main list. Graham87, are there accessibility issues with a discussion formed like that? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There was no reason for you to revert me other than "discuss before adding", which means there was no reason for you to revert me.

The wording you removed specifically allows for nesting such as in your example ("embedding lists starting at the highest level"). The problem addressed is the broken nesting of lists, such as:

*'''Keep''' because etc.
*'''Delete''' because etc.
**Comment on vote
:::Comment on comment
*'''Merge''' with X because etc.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

examples of layout tables[edit]

The link to the data table tutorial is useful, but there's no such link for layout tables. Do any examples exist anywhere? Xaxafrad (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Xaxafrad : Hi! We do not currently have a tutorial or examples of best practices for layout tables. But it is a very good suggestion. If anyone is interrested in making a layout table tutorial please go ahead ! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tiny ping[edit]

The accessibility of {{Tiny ping}} is being discussed. Please make your views known there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Imminent MediaWiki feature that will impact accessibility for screen reader users[edit]

Please see T18691 Section headings should have some clickable anchor for passing links, particularly my comment there. Graham87 15:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Graham87: On that task, the earliest dated comment that is visible for me is by Edokter and shows the datestamp "Mon, Feb 2, 9:22 AM". Judging by the task number, there must have been earlier comments, over several years; yet there is no indication on how these might be viewed, nor when the task was originally raised. Adjacent tasks phab:T18690 and phab:T18692 were created Dec 17 2008, 4:05 PM and Dec 17 2008, 9:36 PM respectively, so phab:T18691 was almost certainly filed on 17 December 2008 - so more than six years worth of comments are inaccessible. I had earlier filed T89690: Missing task creation info to cover a related issue, but that was closed as "invalid", for reasons that I'm trying to understand. To me, the existence of hidden text with no clear means for showing that text is itself an accessibility issue, so if project members could add their thoughts to that task, I would be grateful. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the same problem Redrose, file phab:T91381 about it, because whatever the reason it, that's not acceptable. Sorry I missed this change Graham87, but at least it's given a bit more attention again to fixing the edit section link problem as well. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)