Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility

1. 
2. Collaborations
3. WikiProjects
4. Accessibility

Line-Height in Mobile Wikipedia

I can't use Vector Wikipedia due to migraines, and redirect to Mobile Wikipedia.

I also switch fonts and increase font sizes due to eye strain. Now Mobile Wikipedia limits many lines to 24 px to 27 px. Which can be awfully cramped. I think Mobile Wikipedia should either revert the change or use a multiple of the users' specified font size. 173.66.17.86 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Mobile font line spacing. I'll copy your comment over there and any other comments should be made there. Graham87 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility cleanup tags

Looking thru Category:Cleanup templates, I don't see any tags specifically calling out accessibility issues. I'm thinking that we could have a couple to flag issues with articles like "This article may not have sufficient color contrast" or "This article uses tables lacking semantic data (captions and scopes)" or "This article uses tables with column headers". This could be useful for users who don't feel confident directly editing complex tables without messing them up or who may not be able to figure out appropriate color contrast themselves. Do others think that a few tags like this would be handy? If so, which other kinds of tags could/should we have? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We have {{overcoloured}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have a similar question. I've been unable to find any tags regarding animations. I also tried video. Is there a page which lists all the templates relevant to accessibility? Even a general template called "accessibility (see talk page)" would do. I really want something to attract attention, other than a talk page topic.

Humpster (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Accessibility dispute Moxy🍁 01:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed tracking for images without alt text

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Linter which may be of interest to users here. The idea is track use of images without alt text, and then to surface adding alt text as a suggested "microtask" in the Wikipedia mobile app. the wub "?!" 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a preference from an accessibility standpoint for ellipses (...) style?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Reconsider ellipsis ... vs … preference as to changing Wikipedia's style to change from ... (three dots) with … (Unicode ellipsis, U+2026). Please contribute there to help with that discussion. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you for raising this here. Are there other forums from which we could elicit feedback? Tonymetz 💬 16:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox colors for good/neutral/bad

I've started a discussion that could use input from MOS:COLOR understanders at Template talk:Infobox country § Gini colors and accessibility

Jruderman (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Indian states and union territories by Human Development Index needs a better "medium" color, too. Jruderman (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Lists of years in sidebars

Please see e.g. List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2024, specifically its sidebar, which is headed "Part of a series on British law" and contains several hundred links to similar articles for other years. The links are arranged in groups of up to five.

Regarding that sidebar, does this revert introduce an accessibility issue? There's a thread at User talk:Mauls#British legislation lists concerning that revert. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Will say more at the user talk page. Graham87 (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

railway line legend

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

Possible duplicate or overlapping maintenance categories

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

Inconsistent implementation of accessibility template tracking

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

• {{Accessibility dispute}}
• {{Cleanup colors}}
• {{Alternative text missing}}
• {{Overcolored}}

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:

• {{Accessibility dispute}}
  • <includeonly>[[Category:Articles with accessibility problems]]</includeonly>
• {{Cleanup colors}}
  • <includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}
  • I don't understand how that category name could be correct.
• {{Alternative text missing}}
  • Has complex categorization code assigning a page to differently-named subcategories, including Category:Unclassified articles missing image alternative text.
  • Further, the subcategories are not gathered together under a parent category Category:Articles missing image alternative text.
• {{Overcolored}}
  • {{DMCA|Wikipedia articles with colour accessibility problems}}
  • Since templates and files can also be impacted, I have suggested be changed to: {{DMC|Wikipedia pages with colour accessibility problems}}
  • or: <{{DMCFACT|Wikipedia pages with colour accessibility problems}}

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:

• Category:Articles with accessibility problems (done)
• Whatever the correct category would be for {{Cleanup colors}}
• The new category Category:Articles missing image alternative text

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)

@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)

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)

Missing templates?

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)

Yes they'd fit here; feel free to add them. Graham87 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)