Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 7

640x480
How essential is support for ~640x480 window size (or basically anything smaller then 800x600) for accessibility reasons? This issue has come up in Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * None that I know of. The following news sites for instance: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS have all standardized upon 1024 × 768 as the minimum assumed monitor resolution below which scrolling is required. That resolution is pretty much the Web standard now. Greg L (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Epsom
This article has three infoboxes, templates in the lead: I'm unsure if this placement complies. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From my POV, it's OK ... the tables are easy to skip and I can get to the main text in three keystrokes with JAWS. Graham 87 16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham87. If you have a moment, can you also comment on Acid dissociation constant? I have several concerns there, hard to summarize. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are probably too many navboxes, and I would prefer it if they could be hidden. The equilibrium symbols should be generated with Template:Eqm. Graham 87 08:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed your redlink there, hope ya don't mind. ~ L'Aquatique [talk  ] 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, not at all. :-) Graham 87 05:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of MacBook Family Models
Timeline of MacBook Family Models seems to have multiple accesibility issues... Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The inaccessibility of timelines was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility/Archive 1, among other places. They're still as inaccessible as ever, and will remain so until someone rewrites the EasyTimeline extension for accessibility. Graham 87 08:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Animated image in essay
There's quite strident opposition to the removal of a moving image at Wikipedia_talk:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass; and I've been reverted twice, despite pointing out the accessibility implications and citing WCAG. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At which I've just been told that "Wikipedia does not consider [WCAG] to be relevant"! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing some issues:
 * Image:Bomba atomowa.gif is of poor quality, jerky and does flicker a bit - annoying cycles indefinitely although one cycle is enough to make the point. However the flickering is nowhere near as rapid or intense as the level at which UK TV companies issue epilepsy alerts before programmes.
 * Some animations are very useful ways to illustrate processes, and the good ones are about as smooth as movies or TV. There's a good example at Four-stroke engine.
 * In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass you cite a WCAG guideline on avoiding flickering animations until browsers provide an option to block or freeze animations - although this guideline apparently does not define threshold levels for animations that are likely to cause trouble. In the meantime most Windows browsers freeze animations if the user hits the ESC key and most offer an option to block images altogether; I expect non-Windows browsers offer similar facilites. I'm sure users prone to epilepsy already know and use these facilities, otherwise they'd have a seizure at every page that shows a jiggling banner ad.
 * At another point in that discussion someone cited an RNIB page that allegedly defines the rate and intensity of flickering likely to provoke an epileptic seizure. It might be sensible to define a policy or procedure that allows removal of images that are in that range. However reviews of such images would have to be conducted in a totally objective manner based on current medical criteria supported by WP:RS, and not become witch-hunts against the use of animations. It seems to me that you have seriously damaged your case by appearing set on just such a witch-hunt. -- Philcha (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is you who appears to be confusing issues. Perhaps because you missed that I quoted "The animation should also come to a rest after 3 to 5 cycles" from the RNIB page you cite. You appear to believe, mistakenly, that epilepsy concerns are the only accessibility issues with animated images. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Concern over the welfare of epileptics is a red herring. Sufferers of epilepsy can take care of themselves. There are CSS style sheets to load into browsers to block GIF animations and users who are extraordinarily sensitive to animations can—and without a doubt do—avail themselves of these things. I wonder if there has been one sufferer of epilepsy who has ever come to Wikipedia to complain about any of our animations. Just pardon me all over the place for thinking this, but whereas Andy Mabbett may have the best intentions of epileptics at heart, I think his personal dislike of one particular animation has biased him enough that he is mentally seized upon that issue to help lend credibility and nobility to his cause. But his arguments simply aren’t supported by the facts. I don’t think Philcha has confused any issues; he is merely stating the facts and drawing logical conclusions. Andy’s arguments just don’t make sense. Sorry. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal, fallacious beliefs are not relevant to this matter; and your statement of them here is a further breach of WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don’t question your right to express your beliefs here so I would appreciate it if you afforded me the same courtesy and didn’t presume to tell how I may think and where I may express my views. And, Earth calling Pigsonthewing: your personal beliefs are not the only ones on this pale blue dot that are meritorious. Notwithstanding your attempt to hide behind the apron strings of WP:AGF (and a pronounced tendency to cite Wikipedia essays, guidelines, articles, and policies in an “if it’s blue, it must be true” fashion), as I said stated above, I believe you have the best of intentions here. I’m not questioning your good faith. I simply think you have an extreme personal bias on this issue. As a result of this apparent bias, I find no validity of your arguments, which are fallacious, specious and illogical. Given that no one else is agreeing with you on this matter, that would normally be a clue for most people that you just *might* be wrong. Yet, somehow, that possibility doesn’t seem to have dawned on you. Judging from the tone and tenor of your above response—and your responses to every single other editor who has dared to disagree with you—I believe you A) are absolutely convinced there can be no chance that you are wrong on this, and B) are taking this way too personally, and C) every disagreement is an excuse to pull any stunt to win (witness your baseless ANI against me.) Philcha and I simply disagree with your conclusions and logic. Lighten up and please stop acting like a censor who has the unilateral power to delete animations from Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: Your personal, fallacious beliefs about what you imagine are my mtoivations are not relevant to this matter... Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But that might explain why the factual basis for your arguments crumbles under scrutiny. Greg L (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No such thing has happened, because you keep refuting straw-men, not my arguments. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)




 * [ec]All right, all right. Please, you guys, let's try to get along here. Since compromise is my word of the day, let's try to find a compromise here.
 * I think all involved would agree that putting aside the merits and drawbacks of moving images and looking simply at the image in question... it's not a great image. It's grainy, the animation is poor, and it looks to be low res. Instead of repeatedly edit warring to remove it, why don't just we replace it? There's a whole bunch of static images in Commons:Category:Nuclear tests that would do just as well. ~ L'Aquatique [talk  ] 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Splendid. Would that make you, Andy, happy and end all this? Greg L (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] How about this one? ~ L'Aquatique [talk  ] 01:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned on WT:drop the stick, the original animation was one of wildly exaggerated violence juxtaposed against the relatively benign reality of edit conflict. “Error”: the basis of all humor. It was a humorous sight gag that was obviously added to help relieve tension and defuse conflict, which often occurs in a collaborative writing environment. I think your still image conveys the same effect. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, L'Aquatique; that's fine by me. I think that image should also replace the disputed image, on "Wikipedia-space" pages, and people who have the latter in their user space should be asked to consider dropping it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image should be replaced on other essays (it's found on quite a few), but I would strongly urge you to let it end there. You may, if you feel it necessary, leave a polite note informing them of the situation, but I will be exceedingly... shall we say, disappointed? If you bully or harass them in any way. Are we clear? ~ <font color="#000">L'Aquatique!  <font color="#a96dfc">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#a96dfc">talk/<font color="#a96dfc">stats ] 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the least clear why you adopt such an unwarranted, hostile tone,. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you're reading too much into my words. I have found that throughout this "discussion" you have been overly confrontational, I worry about what it could to do to the reputation of this WikiProject if one of its members is acting in such a way to uninvolved users. ~ <font face="Georgia"><font color="#000">L'Aquatique!  <font color="#a96dfc">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#a96dfc">talk/<font color="#a96dfc">stats ] 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the previous conversation, at above. Andy: Please stop removing these images piecemeal, and claiming/implying that it is based on a recommendation that we are following. If you want the wording of the guideline changed, discuss it an WT:Image use policy. (I would suggest that "sparingly" is purposefully ambiguous - partly because instruction creep should be avoided - but mostly because there are some instances where an embedded animation is wanted, by the vast majority of editors/readers.) Please make it clear in your future discussions of this topic, that you are talking about the images such as those found at Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery and Moon and Horse gait. Making it harder, in any way, for our casual readers to learn from these animations, should be considered from all angles before changes are made.

A few editors have suggested potential technical solutions, such as creating a userpreference that stopped animations from running by default, for the benefit of people such as yourself who find them distracting, and for the epileptic users you so tirelessly campaign on behalf of. I would recommend pursuing those strategies instead, perhaps via the Technical Pump. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of Battles
An editor has added several divisional/Corps symbols to the following order of battle article: Operation Market Garden order of battle. Personally I think it looks ok and if it seemed ok with the wider community I was thinking of doing it myself to some order of battles I have worked on.

The way orders of battle are laid out they are rather text heavy and can be hard sometimes to see where the next division etc start.

On the same subject, I completed the following Operation Epsom order of battle and have found that it is hard to distinguish who the commanding officer of division/Corps etc is. Due to this I have made their rank and names in bold – from a MOS point of view is this acceptable?

Also any hints etc on how to make the article more accessible to the average reader?

Sorry for all the questions and thanks for the help.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * These multi-level nested lists tend to be busy and sloppy looking, and hard to read, but I don't know if there's a better alternative. They definitely could use some graphic help, but just enough to give the reader some milestones, because too much will increase the clutter.


 * In Market Garden, I would consider just having the insignia for top-level armies and corps, but not for every single bullet point.


 * For Operation Epsom, try unit names in bold and commanders in regular—this may still provide differentiation, but may seem more natural. Abbreviating the commanders' ranks may reduce clutter a bit.


 * Looks good so far. —Michael Z. 2008-10-27 18:27 z 


 * I have adjusted the British half of the article for now, I will use that as a sandbox so to speak before I edit the German half.
 * The AG/Army/Corps/Division and brigade titles are now all in bold, the commanding officers have been returned to regular text and any additional information has been moved to a new footnote section at the bottom of the article.
 * After these few changes the list looks so much more clearer (I honestly don’t know why I didn’t think of some of these changes until now and others when you mentioned them). I personally don’t think that there is a need for graphics now, do you?
 * However the commanding officers, especially those without links, do become somewhat blurred within the text. As a test I did change the commanding officers so they to were bold however it didn’t seem to help much.
 * Any further suggestions on what could be done to make the article more accessible to the general reader? Or any comments on the changes made thus far?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WCAG
It's clear from recent comments (see above) that some editors do not believe that the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are not "relevant" to Wikipedia. I consider that to be a harmful position, but accept that there is no clear written policy (leastwise, none that I can find) mandating or recommending that those industry-standard guidelines should be followed, or to which level. Practical experience shows that it is sometimes necessary to work around certain poorly-worded or obsoleted parts, hence the (draft) WCAG 2.0 and WCAG Samurai; but I believe that there should be a clear policy that, in the absence of consensus to exempt specific cases, WCAG guidelines should be followed to a stated level; or at least that we should, as a body, strive towards doing so.

Does anyone have comments, and would people support such a move, and be willing to assist me in taking it forward? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No one else here seems to have the distaste you have for animations. I encourage other editors to review the goings on in that link, and consider the ramifications. Wikipedia has gotten along just fine with our animations and I’m not aware that any epileptic anywhere has had a problem with them. There are CSS style sheets to load into browsers to block GIF animations and users who are extraordinarily sensitive to animations can avail themselves of these things if need be. Please drop this Andy. Greg L (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your personal, fallacious beliefs about what you imagine are my motivations are not relevant to this matter; and your restatement of them here is a further breach of WP:AGF. Your equation of WCAG solely with animated images strongly suggests a lack of understanding of accessibility in general and of my proposal in particular. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My personal beliefs are neither fallacious nor imagined. Fortunately, Wikipedia provides an abundant evidence trail (cited below) and editors can make up their own minds as to what this is about. “Assume good faith” ≠ “suspend common sense.” You started out by deleting an animation from an essay (Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass) and cited WCAG as the justification for doing so . You stated (∆ here) as follows:




 * Further, you stated (∆ here) that you believed the animation on this essay is a “harmful image.” That is just so absurd. Absolutely no one has been agreeing with you; not here on WT:Drop the stick, nor above on this page. Yet you persist at this. Why? Note that many of our self-running, looping animations have achieved Featured Picture status and there are galleries, like this one showing them off. It seems you don’t like that *inconvenient truth* and haven’t come to grips with the reality that the vast majority of editors greatly appreciate the many animations we have on Wikipedia. Further, you have failed to produce evidence that a single individual with epilepsy has ever complained about Wikipedia’s animations and stated that there are no suitable ways for such sufferers to block them. Yet here you are, hammering away on this. You should consider what the message point of WP:DEADHORSE means. And please stop Wikilawering and trying to hide behind the apron strings of wholesome sounding rules like “WP:AGF”. You flat out stated—many times—what your intentions are. Greg L (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. As to your statement (∆ here) “I believe that there should be a clear policy that, in the absence of consensus to exempt specific cases, WCAG guidelines should be followed to a stated level;” that too is patently absurd . Wouldn’t it be just *extra special* if every editor could make such a case for their pet cause: that without a consensus not to follow said policy, the policy should—by default—be followed(?). Uhmmm… (*sound of strumming on the keyboard as I deeply ponder this one*)… No. By that logic, I could state “in the absence of any consensus whatsoever not to ban tendentious editors for life, we should assume it’s OK to just go ahead and ban them for life.” You get an “A” for effort. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn’t work that way. Greg L (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)