User:Lexein/sandbox

__NOINDEX__

52-1748195 	Community for Creative Non-Violence		Washington 	DC 	United States 	PC

Seeking the correct forum for JPG orientation problems, and EXIF metadata display problems. These are on Wikipedia, but display handling code is probably shared with Commons. 1. JPEG image displays correctly in thumbnail, but not in main image - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TushiesbyMultibrands.jpg - a series of attempts to reduce failed to set orientation for main display correctly. Trick here is that there are two orientation fields, both generated by the camera, one "camera", one "manufacturer" 2. EXIF display table size is not forced to screen width or some sensible maximum width, especially for long unbroken data as in User Comments: (click Show Extended Details) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TushiesbyMultibrands.jpg#metadata

Camera manufacturer 	SAMSUNG Camera model 	GT-I9300 Exposure time 	1/17 sec (0.058823529411765) F-number 	f/2.6 ISO speed rating 	200 Date and time of data generation 	16:59, 7 December 2012 Lens focal length 	3.7 mm Width 	3,264 px Height 	2,448 px Orientation 	Rotated 90° CCW Horizontal resolution 	72 dpi Vertical resolution 	72 dpi Software used 	I9300XXALF2 File change date and time 	16:59, 7 December 2012 Y and C positioning 	Centered Exposure Program 	Aperture priority Exif version 	2.2 Date and time of digitizing 	16:59, 7 December 2012 Meaning of each component

Y   Cb    Cr    does not exist

Shutter speed 	4.05859375 APEX aperture 	2.76 APEX brightness 	0.828125 Exposure bias 	0 Maximum land aperture 	2.76 APEX (f/2.6) Metering mode 	Center weighted average Flash 	Flash did not fire User comments

Supported Flashpix version 	0,100 Color space 	sRGB Exposure mode 	Auto exposure White balance 	Auto white balance Scene capture type 	Standard Unique image ID 	ZDFE02 Hide extended details

__NOINDEX__ I'm interested in adding Magnet links of the form [magnet:xxxxx] to the Wikipedia site configuration for protocol handling, to allow magnet links to be presented as clickable links by the user's browser and/or external applications. The Bittorrent world has shifted away from indexing .torrent files, toward the less centralized method of referring to content by hash. This is similar to the iTunes: protocol addition. According to meta:Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes, local on-wiki consensus should be obtained before requesting Wikipedia-wide configuration changes. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes

Invitations to Alt text discussion

 * User talk:Aniruddhajnu, Hindi

For WP:ALT text, there's a template, which (as do some infoboxes) adds an article to (hidden). There are currently ~250 articles in the category. When an editor adds alt text, and removes the template, that act (or the infobox template logic) removes the article from the category, essentially leaving no trace.

Right now, there's no tag to call for a review of alt text I think Wikipedia users (esp. visually impaired) should also have a template such as  and a (hidden)   where "review" means determine if alt text is accurate, appropriate and non-redundant in context, for the intended audience, per WP:ALT, and improve if necessary. For easy use, a template redirect Alt text could be implemented.

This differs from the usual "XfD" fora, because direct improvement by reviewing editors is the primary goal, not just commenting or !voting.

So I'm here asking about the category name. Discussion? --Lexein (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an open call to anyone who uses image ALT text on Wikipedia (congenitally blind, blind but formerly sighted, vision impaired, colorblind, and fully sighted (for the image-missing or images-off cases)). Please introduce yourself at, and participate in discussions at WT:ALT about alt-text usability. Topics include
 * Alt text or not?
 * Complaints by some blind users about "too much" alt text (need more data!)
 * Off-wikipedia essays expressing desire for more descriptiveness
 * Length,
 * Limits to descriptiveness (adjectives, colors, etc)
 * Photos of individuals? These are currently not addressed by accessibility standards.
 * Balancing the needs of each of its five audiences (listed above)
 * Setting limits for different use cases?

There are two main areas - on top, an ongoing discussion of what's good and bad in alt-text, and at the bottom, I will be listing articles to which I have added Alt Text, for brief thumbs up/down/improvement comments. --Lexein (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance
At Wikipedia, a small group of volunteer editors is discussing usability of image alt text for its five main audiences: congenitally blind, formerly sighted, vision impaired, colorblind, and sighted (for the missing image or images-off case). We're interested in further input from the above groups about the state of alt text at WP, and the way forward. Our current guidelines (and yours) do not at the moment concretely assist Wikipedia volunteer editors in the creation of widely acceptable, uncontroversial alt text. With your permission, if you have a coordinated army of volunteer accessibility evaluators, I'd like to recruit them. If that is viable, I'd like to construct a test plan, with specific initial test articles, review questions, and a way for evaluators to provide organized feedback. For the study to be conducted entirely in-wiki, volunteers will need to perform wiki edits to provide feedback, which may require some training.

Thanks for your time. Lex Ein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lexein http://en.wikipeida.org/wiki/WT:Alternative_text_for_images

Alt text resources

 * NVDA Screenreader download
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=default&search=blind
 * http://blind.wikia.com/wiki/Blind_Wiki:About
 * http://blind.wikia.com/wiki/Mediawiki_and_Accessibility
 * http://wikipapers.referata.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=1&ns0=1&search=blind&limit=500&offset=0
 * http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/Enhancing_Wikipedia_Editing_with_WAI-ARIA
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Accessibility#Not_just_for_the_blind

Citation formats
I'm seeing more and more new articles with references consistently formatted like this

I do hope this format is not being recommended by AfD reviewers, or anywhere in the new article instructions, because it is simply flawed and tedious to conform to any usual Wikipedia citation formats which are supported by templates and tools. It produces a WP:Bare URL. To fix it requires
 * tedious hand editing, swapping title and url, add brackets like this: The actual title of the article
 * building a cite web template around the existing parts

Recommendation - have new editors simply leave bareurls inside re tags,, and wait for someone to run the Webreflinks or Reflinks tools. It's far less work for followon editors and WP:Wikignomes. --Lexein (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The near last resort
The near-to-last resort is the one-way, requested-assistance interaction ban, which would only hold for this page. It depends entirely on what X wants on their own Talk page. This is X's talk page. In accord with WP:OWNTALK, they have my !vote to delete any message from it that he chooses, at any time. X also has the right to request that Y not comment here. This is civil, and should be respected, and usually is: 3O and other DR editors advise respecting such requests. Further, if X were to declare at top of page that he does not want comments by Y here, and that other editors are permitted to delete them, I would help. It wouldn't be personal, just a grim last resort which ideally would not be used, but turned out to be necessary. If this is a community of figurative encyclopedia farmers, then like farmers, we should watch over each others' plots if asked. If Y felt harassed, I'd offer the same assistance on Y's Talk page. --Lexein (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)