Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

WikiProject Accessibility
Article guidelines
Template guidelines
Coordination
For impaired users

railway line legend

[edit]

Please see Template talk:Railway line legend § h-title text?-20240924023400. Jeremyb (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible duplicate or overlapping maintenance categories

[edit]

There are two color accessibility maintenance categories: Category:Wikipedia articles with colour accessibility problems and Category:Articles with insufficient color contrast. Would these properly be combined into one category? If so, the downstream templates would need to be updated to use the correct category. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried unsuccessfully to find where Category:Articles with insufficient color contrast is being created. All of the content in that category is sports-related. I tracked from that category to Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast to Geelong West Giants. Examining the wikicode for that page, I'm not seeing any templates or categories on that page that would cause it to be added to a category. So I'm guessing there's a module somewhere that detects contrast issues on those pages and created the respective categories. The module's -- if that's what it is -- behavior is not ideal; it doesn't place a block on the Geelong West Giants page to call attention to the contrast issue to editors. But I don't know for sure what's happening and it's a mystery to me. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thisisnotatest: The code is in Template:Infobox australian football club which at the very end has 
<includeonly>{{main other |{{Ensure AA contrast ratio|base={{{color1|}}}|other={{{color2|}}}|category=[[Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast‎|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}</includeonly>
The trigger for the specific case of Geelong West Giants is the two infobox parameters |color1=#F15C22|color2=white and if we feed these colours into Snooks Colour Contrast Check we find a contrast ratio of 3.336 - well below the 4.5 that we need for AA compliance. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Ah, thank you, that was opaque to me. It might be better if the problematic template were tracked rather than the article, in order to make the issue easier to find. Just a thought. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thisisnotatest: The template shouldn't be tracked because the template is not the problem - those colour values are set in the article, and other articles will set other values which may well satisfy AA compliance - if not AAA compliance as well. For example, {{Infobox australian football club}} is also used by Brisbane Lions, which isn't in Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast because the article sets |color1=#981952|color2=#FECD29 which yield a colour contrast ratio of 5.384 which satisfies AA compliance. Going still further, Essendon Football Club sets |color1=Black|color2=White which yield a colour contrast ratio of 21 which not only satisfies AA compliance but also AAA compliance to the maximum possible level.--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Ah, thank you. My head is spinning with all the layers upon layers but I'll trust that those with more knowledge than me about how Wiki code works have sorted it all. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent implementation of accessibility template tracking

[edit]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility has four templates to call out accessibility issues with content:

Unfortunately, they are implemented inconsistently with one another, which decreases usability and adds cognitive load for tracking pages with problems. It would be good to harmonize how these templates handle tracking.

Here's the current state:

Additionally, Category:Accessibility issue tracking categories currently only includes {{Overcolored}}, as Category:Wikipedia articles with colour accessibility problems. We need to add the following categories to that overarching category:

Finally, it needs to be determined whether these templates are to only be tracked for articles or for all major page types (Articles, Templates, Categories, and Files).

Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest: For {{Cleanup colors}}, you're misreading the template code. The part that you show above is nothing to do with tracking accessibility issues, it's part of the code to check if the template has been used correctly. Here's the rest of it: 
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}
This is what might be called a preliminary check. Put simply: this template must be transcluded (i.e. {{cleanup colors|date=September 2024}}) and not substituted (i.e. {{subst:cleanup colors|date=September 2024}}), and that is what the test is ensuring.
The actual banner follows directly after, and looks like this (with non-relevant parts either contracted or replaced by an ellipsis):
{{Ambox
| name  = Cleanup-colors
| type  = content
| image = ...
| issue = This article '''uses colour as the only way to convey important information.'''
| fix   = To meet Wikipedia's web accessibility guidelines, please help improve this ...
| date  = {{{date|}}}
| all = Wikipedia articles with colour accessibility problems
}}
If you look at the documentation for {{Ambox}} you'll find that this template does the categorisation using the value fed in through its |all= parameter; the cleanup category is therefore Category:Wikipedia articles with colour accessibility problems. If you look at an article that uses that banner, such as Radcliffe wave, you'll find that it is not in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates but is in fact in Category:Wikipedia articles with colour accessibility problems - the same one that is emitted by {{Overcoloured}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the category has been renamed to Category:Wikipedia pages with colour accessibility problems, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_13#Category:Wikipedia_pages_with_colour_accessibility_problems. – Fayenatic London 11:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing templates?

[edit]

The section Templates for pages with accessibility issues appears to be missing {{Ensure AA contrast ratio}}, {{Ensure AAA contrast ratio}}, and {{Greater color contrast ratio}}. Do these templates belong on the page in this section?

As with the immediately preceding previous discussion, Inconsistent implementation of accessibility template tracking, if these detect issues that need to be tracked, then if they are not tracked they need to have error tracking capability added and have the tracking category added to Category:Accessibility issue tracking categories.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they'd fit here; feel free to add them. Graham87 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't tell whether those templates point out errors (and so would belong on Category:Accessibility issue tracking categories) or correct errors (so would not need to be tracked). I put a comment on the three respective talk pages asking for clarification. Further, editing two of them are restricted to official template editors and administrators, so I have no way to add the category to the code. Further, there are differences between those templates and the currently categorized tracking templates. Guess I'll need to wait for them to respond or else post a query at the Village Pump (technical) before I can proceed further. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've since learned they already place violating pages into a category which is tracked in Category:Accessibility issue tracking categories, so nothing needs to be done. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thisisnotatest: You are misunderstanding what I have written on this page and elsewhere (was it really necessary to start so many discussions?): Template:Greater color contrast ratio does not categorise at all, whereas the other two templates only categorise if category syntax is explicitly passed in. See my post of 22:04, 27 September 2024 above, specifically the part which says 
|category=[[Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast‎|{{PAGENAME}}]]
so for that specific usage the category is Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast. Since this value is free-form, potentially any category could be emitted, or a page link, or just plain text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: re "was it really necessary to start so many discussions?" I was trying to classify each discussion to be closest to its subject. Were I to start a single discussion instead, I don't have the slightest idea where the proper place would be. And all three templates needed to be better documented to better explain when to use them and what the effect would be of using them. One thing led to another and here we are with multiple overlapping discussions that I started. I'm sorry if it's irritating to you; that was not my intent. It just reflects my confusion over the best way to raise these issues. For me, the best way to raise it is get it as close to the source as possible, since that's where I would look for it to see if someone else had brought it up. I do appreciate your various advice on the various topics. Thisisnotatest (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject useful for visually impaired (article audios)

[edit]

Hi everyone, you may be interested in this new WikiProject: Wikipedia spoken by AI voice. It's very different from screenreaders – examples you can listen to are on that page. New participants are very welcome. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four-dimensional space isn't accessible.

[edit]

Citing MOS didn't work. A simple clarification didn't work. Detailed explanation and a little humour didn't work. I'd appreciate assistance from more experienced editors, notably that the MOS guideline isn't a result of consensus. Humpster (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Official state car § Super tables

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Official state car § Super tables. The discussion is about a large prose article being modified into a super-table.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS tables

[edit]

I am trying to increase the readability of tables like the one at 2023 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Right now they are

  • very wide
  • mostly blank cells with colors

My goal is to make the table skinny enough so a reader can see all the content without logging in or scrolling to the side, and also to have some content inside each cell that could be read by screen reader - not to mention copy-pasted.

My idea is to have a letter or a few letters in each cell, matching the current colors (I would keep the colors too). With a few exceptions, the most common types of cells are

  • wrote a majority
  • joined a majority
  • wrote a dissent
  • joined a dissent

Ideally these would be represented by single letters: M, m, D, d, respectively. The result is something like

M
 Majority, written
D#
 Dissent, written
C#
 Concurrence, written
P#
 Partial concurrence and dissent, written
m
 Majority, joined
d#
 Dissent, joined
c#
 Concurrence, joined
p#
 Partial concurrence and dissent, joined
Case name and citation Argued Decided JR CT SA SS EK NG BK AB KJ
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 11 Feb 1803 24 Feb 1803 M D1 m m m d1 m m d1

I think this is definitely better, but there is still the possibility that screen-readers won't tell the difference between upper- and lower-case letters. I'm not sure what alternative to use to solve that problem. Wizmut (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested colours are WCAG 2 AA Compliant, but only three of them are also AAA Compliant. You can get the "dissent, written" one to also be AAA Compliant by lightening it slightly:  D1 . --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added all the colors that are likely to be used, if you can take a look. Is https://accessible-colors.com/ a good tool? I think I got them all in the clear but let me know if more changes are needed to the colors. Or anything else Wizmut (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be simple to change the colors, just change the first value in the palette table at Module:SCOTUS-termlist-entry. For example, "#00CD00" changes into whatever your new color for majority is.
I do not remember joining being a thing in the module, like joining majority, joining concurrance, so that would need to be added. Snævar (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the colors are easy to change but there's other problems with the template. My original question wasn't really about the colors. Wizmut (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Take a look at opinion 84, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, at 2005 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The width of that row will not go down with your change, although the readability will go up. Snævar (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... maybe the split could be vertical instead of horizontal. I should give this more attention. Wizmut (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search Field More Difficult to Activate with a Screen-reader in Chrome

[edit]

I am a JAWS-user, with Chrome as my preferred and default browser, and I have noticed that, for about the past week, the edit field to execute a search from an article page must be reached by activating a link. This reduces the ease in which I can get to this field, as I could formerly use form field keyboard shortcuts, particularly the letter E, to quickly jump to this field from anywhere on the page. The label of the link (in Chrome) suggests I can press Alt + F to activate it, but this keyboard shortcut does not work in Chrome, I believe because it is overruled by the browser. Additional labeling on the link (a title attribute or ARIA label perhaps) prompts me to instead use alt + shift + F, but this does not work in Chrome either. It does work in Firefox, and the edit field is still available without the prior link in Edge. I have not tested with other screen-readers. I am not knowledgeable enough to suggest a cause of this situation and the discrepancies. Never the less, having the search feature represented and accessed by this link feature in Chrome is certainly a disadvantage that I thought was worth mentioning. 123.16.13.229 (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; I also use JAWS/Chrome and I myself noticed this today in Incognito mode (I use an older skin called MonoBook, which is better for editors, when logged in). It also occurs in the other major Windows screen reader, NVDA. I wonder if it might be a Chrome issue rather than a result of anything happening on Wikipedia. I'll ask at the technical village pump. Furthermore, if you'd like an account to bypass CAPTCHAs (and also so you can use the more accessible Wikipedia skin), please email me at grahamwp@gmail.com and I can arrange it. Graham87 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the bug report!
I tried things out, and I found that the Wikipedia interface visually hides the search text field (requiring a link to be clicked to access it) when the browser window is not full-screen (less than 1120px wide); this also affects the structure available to screen readers. Try maximizing the window (the keyboard shortcut ⊞ Win+↑ should work). If you can't do that, or if it's already full-screen and your screen is just narrow, try zooming out (keyboard shortcut Ctrl+-, or Ctrl+0 to reset the zoom level), which also increases the width available for the content in the browser.
The fact that Alt+⇧ Shift+F doesn't work to focus the search link when it is shown seems like a bug, although I'm not sure whether it's Wikipedia's or Chrome's fault. I filed task T384559 for someone to investigate.
Matma Rex talk 03:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resource page on "Neuro-inclusive event strategies" started on Meta

[edit]

I started this page on Meta, Meta:Neuro-inclusive event strategies. Anyone is invited to contribute to this page. Hexatekin (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility&oldid=1272641782"