Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility

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

Home breadcrumb.svg >Collaborations >WikiProjects >Accessibility

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 on alignment of template headings[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Collapse top#RfC: Heading centered or left by default?, for a discussion that would affect the default text-align of the headers/titles of various content-box templates.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on replacing pseudo-headers[edit]

FYI, Talk:Glossary of video game terms#RfC: Replacing pseudo-headers. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Paragraph break at TFD[edit]

WikiProject Accessibility members may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 17#Template:Paragraph break. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've given up on that discussion, since EEng is clearly out to discredit me no matter what. My question to this WikiProject is: does Template:Paragraph break assist with accessibility, or does it create accessibility problems, or is it accessibility neutral? Be honest, but please comment on that TfD, not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible line break accessibility issue[edit]

Could you take a look at the pastcoaching parameter of the infobox at Marvin Lewis? Is this a MOS:VLIST issue? The coaching positions do go with the individual entries on the list, but I'm not sure if they break the list structure. It's certainly not a "best practice", but is this worth fixing with a bot? ~ RobTalk 16:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This is fine and one of the reasons you might validly use <br>. You could also use a <p>, but this case could probably go either way. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I would go so far as to say it's an exemplary use of <br /> - it improves the visual display without causing any problems for screen readers that I'm aware of. Semantically I'd much prefer it to using <p>...</p> to do the job in this case - the coaching position is too tightly related to the location in my mind for them to be in separate paragraphs. Just my opinion of course. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, sounds fine to me, as a screen reader user. Graham87 08:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction! ~ RobTalk 15:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility issues in an infobox template[edit]

{{Infobox AFL biography}} has some bad issues with accessibility for those using screen readers. Please see here for more information and to participate in the discussion. ~ RobTalk 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Module:Portal bar[edit]

I've proposed changes to Module:Portal bar (sandbox) that may affect accessibility. The two relevant changes are:

  • The container is a "portals navigation region" (JAWS default announcement) instead of nested tables.
  • The decorative icons are unlinked, with empty alt attributes.

See testcases for examples. Please leave a message at the template talk page if this can be improved in any way. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Matt Fitzpatrick: Please do not unlink "decorative" icons if they are licensed CC BY or CC BY-SA - under the terms of the license, attribution is required on each use, and a link to the file description page is an acceptable means of providing that attribution. Delinking (as you did here) is thus a breach of license terms. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Relinking for now. The links introduce a lot of useless noise, though. Images that can go unlinked are probably more appropriate for this use. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Images that can go unlinked are those that don't require attribution. Mostly these are images that are licensed CC-0, or are explicitly public domain. Note that some PD images do require attribution - for example, images licensed {{PD-NASA}} require that "NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You're right, better not to mess with links or attribution in this module. And thanks for the reminder, by the way! The second bullet point above is no longer applicable and can be ignored. Even if the images are unlinked later on a case by case basis, that's a job for a different module. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Inaccessible small text in Template:Infobox single[edit]

See here for an ongoing discussion on the widespread usage of small font within {{Infobox single}}, resulting in WP:FONTSIZE issues. ~ Rob13Talk 20:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of Flatlist and Hlist in infoboxes[edit]

A discussion regarding the use of {{Flatlist}} or {{Hlist}} in various music infoboxes is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox album#Harmonization with other music templates. Comments regarding their benefit are welcome. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

French talk page format[edit]

Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine #Color coding of talk pages, it was suggested that I should post the way that French Wikipedia formats its talk pages in case it might be of interest to anyone here. It will produce the same effect as for example, fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Accueil principal; you can scroll down that talk page to see if the lines and colours help to make the threading any clearer.

If you'd like to try it out, put the following into Special:MyPage/common.css:

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:#f5faff;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:white;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl {border-top: solid 1px #a7d7f9; border-left: solid 1px #a7d7f9; padding-top:0.5em; padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:1em;}

Of course, you only have to remove the above to return your talk pages here to normal. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: That's a great improvement - thank you! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
There was an error in the color specification there. I corrected the example. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Well spotted, TheDJ. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we get this into a gadget? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Using math extension for simple symbols and chemical reactions[edit]

Hi! I came here from, as we neither have WikiProject related to accessibility issues nor even a help page. There is a small discussion about using math extension to write simple in-line symbols and chemical reactions. At this moment we're using {{chem}}/{{chem2}} for writing chemical reactions and don't have any guidelines regarding whether to use math or wikitext to write in-line symbols (like in this example taken from Concentration: "The mass concentration is defined as..." or "The mass concentration ρi is defined as..."). Are there any diffrences between these two options for people with disabilities? Are the symbols in math extension readable using screen readers or other software? Do you have any guidelines in related to this problems? I would be very grateful if you could clarify these issues. Wostr (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have any guidelines on this issue, but yes, the symbols in the math tag are readable with screen readers. In fact, now that MathML is the default, they're very easy to use. Graham87 05:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for answer. I didn't know that math tags are readable. Wostr (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Color schemes for tables[edit]

Is there anybody here who is experienced at putting together attractive, contrasting color schemes for tables which meet the WP:ACCESSIBILITY criteria, and perhaps is willing to help out at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system#Color_coding. It affects a family of four articles. Every few weeks somebody comes along and changes the scheme on a personal whim, usually reducing the contrast between the categories to enhance the aesthetic look. I concede it's not pretty to look at (I didn't select it) but I am concerned that reducing the contrast between categories could have implications for color blind people etc. I'm not that fussed about individual colors (there are a couple I would like to retain for intuitive reasons) and would like to put together an attractive, contrasting color scheme that poses no accessibility problems. If anybody is prepared to help us out then I'd be grateful. Betty Logan (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly? We should just put a blanket ban on using anything other than the styles provided in the core style sheets, with rare exception (perhaps especially for templates). --Izno (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I have read the sections about tables and accessibility and cannot find much helpful advice, only Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Color, which doesn't offer much guidance. If there is a standard pallette then could you link to the relevant page please? Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
There is some useful information at Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users - which is a daft place to put it... Basically, you can use black, white, yellow, and one from blue and purple, and one from Red, Green, Brown and Grey. If you're trying to cover the common color blindness conditions, then it is pretty much impossible to cover more than five categories with different colors alone. You need to either add something like cross-hatching or make distinctions in the label of the text.
There are a few (free) online tools available. VisCheck seems to be permanently down..., but Colorblind Web Page Filter seems to work well. You can enter a url in the box, select the color filter from the drop-down list, and press "Fetch and Filter! ...may take a minute" and wait for the results - it's actually quite quick. I had a quick look at the old and new versions mentioned at the motion pictures talk page and the results are scary!
I did some work quite a few years ago on colors for user interfaces (and also in manuals that might get printed in black and white). I'd like to help out. It would be useful to have a few palettes that could be used in tables and figures. Robevans123 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Robevans123: Thanks for those links Rob. The color blind filter is especially illuminating. I had already sussed out there was a problem with the blue/purple and red/brown combos using a contrast checker, but it transpires from your links there is a problem with our green and red combos too. Another editor has joined the discussion at the article but doesn't seem to fully appreciate the accessibility aspects and is more concerned with making it look nice and we seem to be going in circles. I think maybe we need a fresh start at the discussion with this new information and if you wish to take an active role in helping design a new color scheme at the article you would be very welcome. I certainly think Wikipedia needs to provide more guidance/suggestions for color combinations and I think the comparison table would be a good test case. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Method of indenting comments in discussions under discussion[edit]

FYI, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Use of colon ":" for indenting comments in discussions should be deprecated and the use of star "*" encouraged. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Color contrast accessibility issue/discussion[edit]

See the edit history on Atlanta United FC, involving the use of colors failing to meet AA compliance. Members of this WikiProject may wish to be involved in the discussion that will be held on the article's talk page. ~ Rob13Talk 07:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

List gap help[edit]

@Graham87 and RexxS: I've been trying to explain to The Banner why list gap and bad coded nested lists are not good for accessibility. I given MOS, given examples linked on this talk page. I've given and explained code, but they refuse to read it. They only want... "Is there any outside research done in the matter?" Can somebody explain why list gap is bad and why nested lists that act like list gap is also bad. Bgwhite (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And you act as if I am evil... but when something is good or bad, there should be some outside evidence to prove your point. The Banner talk 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bgwhite and The Banner: Well, I've been removing line breaks to make proper HTML lists for a very long time indeed. (I think I started doing it even further back, once I got a version of my screen reader that made broken lists important, as far back as March 2007, but I can't remember what edit summaries I used then). Suffice it to say that if I, a screen reader user, have been trying to fix broken HTML lists consistently for the past eight or nine years, then it must mean that I believe they're very annoying and fixing them is very important for me. There wouldn't be much outside research on this problem because only wikis allow random people on the Internet to go in and create malformed HTML lists (whether nested or otherwise). However I do know of another blind person who has mentioned that broken HTML lists are problematic; I'll let him know about this discussion if you want another view on the matter. Graham87 08:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)