Talk:Cabinet of Singapore/Archive 2

Images

Hi, Singopo, I believe your relocation of the two images in the "History" section of the article is incorrect for the following reasons:

• You relocated the articles into the lead section under the {{Politics of Singapore}} box. However, the images relate to the "History" section. According to "WP:ACCESS#Images" and "MOS:IMAGES", images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading. This is to aid visually-impaired readers who use screen reader software.
• You made the left-aligned image of Lee Kuan Yew right-aligned. However, MOS:IMAGES states: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left ... ."

Could you explain more clearly what you mean by your edit summary that "the picture positioning leaves a large gap under the 'History' heading"? Where exactly does this gap appear? The original location of the images looks fine on my computer (and presumably on many other readers' computers as well), so saying that the locations look wrong on your computer is not a sufficient reason for altering the locations in such a way that they cease to comply with the above Wikipedia policies. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved them into the lead section within the wikitext, but not on the page as it appears to the reader, where they still appear within the 'History' section. The gap I'm referring to appears under the 'History' title on my screen. It may not appear on all screen setups, but it does on more than one computer I've looked at this page with. Singopo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this does not comply with the policies mentioned above because images must be inside the section they belong to, after the heading. For accessibility purposes it is not the visual appearance that counts. Visually-impaired readers who use screen readers will find it confusing when the software tells them about two images that do not relate to the text in the lead section. Also, where exactly underneath the "History" heading does the gap that you are seeing appear? On the left or right side of the screen? What sort of "gap" is it – a large blank space? I am trying to understand what the problem that you are experiencing is. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On three different screens I've used in different places, a sizeable white gap appears between the 'History' heading and the text below it (because the text won't start until the first picture appears, and the picture appears below the info box). Can you suggest another way to fix this besides the way I tried (which did work from a reader's point of view, even though it may potentially confuse editors)? Singopo (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is very strange. I think it may not be a screen issue, but possibly a browser issue. What browser are you using? I've looked at the article using Mozilla Firefox 3.5.4, Google Chrome 3, Internet Explorer 8 and Safari 4.0.3, and I don't see a big white gap between the heading and the text. The text starts properly just beneath the heading with the image on the right as it should be. Perhaps you can try updating to the latest version of your preferred browser and see if that solves the problem. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am using Internet Explorer 8. Singopo (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think I know what the problem is. On some screens, if the font size is small, the {{Politics of Singapore}} box on the top right-hand corner is quite long, and displaces the text and image in the "History" section. You could increase the font size that you view documents at by pressing CTRL +. Alternatively, the image of Sir William Cleaver Francis Robinson can be moved down slightly: see User:Jacklee/sandbox1. This also solves the problem. Which do you prefer? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The version in your sanbox is even worse, with an even bigger gap now appearing at the end of the first paragraph. Besides me, there must be thousands maybe even millions of potential Wikipedia readers who come to the site with their screens set up for a small font size and who don't want to have to change their setup in order to be able to view pages properly. Personally I think it's a shame that Wikipedia seems to be prioritising making life a bit simpler for a few editors over having the site appear properly for a large group of readers. Singopo (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[Unindenting] Ah, sorry, there was a problem with the test case in my sandbox. I didn't copy enough text in there for the table of contents to appear. Have a look at it now. Also, don't you think you are assuming, possibly wrongly, that the number of readers who encounter problems viewing the article as it currently appears outnumbers the number of readers who do not? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea which group outnumbers the other. What I am assuming (and I'm pretty sure I'm correct about this) is that the number who would experience a problem with the page as it currently appears represents a significant percentage of potential readers of the page. It may not be the majority, but I'm sure it's a sizeable group. Anyway, the way it looks in your sandbox now does get rid of the gap. Singopo (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've adjusted the article according to the version in my sandbox. Glad we managed to resolve this matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)