Wikipedia talk:Accessibility dos and don'ts

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Shellwood (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 24 January 2023 (Reverted 1 edit by (talk): ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject Accessibility  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Accessibility, a group of editors promoting better access for disabled or otherwise disadvantaged users. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page.
WikiProject Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This quick reminder is a bright idea, we need such a page. :-)

Now done with the compliments. This page needs to be refined, because seven criteria should be removed. :p

Check article appearance at all screen resolutions.
This has little to do with accessibility. It is a best practice to take into account low resolutions, but it's not really the job of editors here. Plus, Web accessibility is about people with disabilities using the web, and low resolutions are not related to accessibility.
Use wiki markup rather than HTML wherever possible.
Again, this is good usability-wise, but has little to do with accessibility.
Write descriptive section headings.
Yes, but in nearly all cases editors will satisfy this requirement, be it important for accessibility or not. Thus, it's not needed to write this requirement.
Create good descriptions for all links.
Just the same, apart from a few remaining "click here" horrors, most links are explicit in context.
Provide a text description of any charts or diagrams.
Is it not redundant with the previous requirement about alt text for images? Edit: you may be right, it's a different case.
Don't use features which require JavaScript or CSS.
Said it like this, it's wrong. This one is quite complicated, and cannot be summarized easily. CSS and JavaScript can be perfectly accessible, if done correctly. It's the "if done correctly" that is quite long to explain.
Don't use techniques that require interaction.
I understand what you mean. But said it like this, it's wrong, as many interactions are perfectly fine. Again, you would have to specify the wrong types of interaction, and that would be quite long. You'd better remove it.

It may sound like it removes most of the contents of this page, but fear not. There are several other important requirements that we can mention here, like accessible tables, language changes, etc. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't forget that readers in third-world countries may have very limited bandwidth, so we should still be catering for text-only browsers, which has implications for charts and diagrams that do not have a description. It is also true that we should not use techniques that require javascript, since we have many readers at work who do not control the settings on their pcs - it is not unusual for policy to have javascript turned off within corporate networks. Accessibility is about more than just readers with disabilities (although they are high priority); it is about ensuring that our site can be enjoyed to the fullest extent by as many people as possible. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I did not removed this requirement ("Provide a text description of any charts or diagrams.").
Oh, sorry, I somehow misunderstood that one. Sure, it is still a good practice to ensure that people who disabled JavaScript can access the same contents and do the same actions as those who have JavaScript enabled. However, since WCAG 2.0 this is no longer an accessibility requirement. Plus, I believe the target of this page is mostly editors, not developers, so it would not really help. I've been thinking to create a page about "web best practices", that could contain such important requirements that are not related to accessibility. Feel free to go ahead and create this page if you feel inspired. :-)
About the target of accessibility, you're mistaking WAI's mission for W3C's mission as I did before. According to the WAI, Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web. Benefits to people wit low bandwith is merely a side effect, and not a goal in itself.
I would also strive to optimize Wikipedia for users with low bandwith. But like I said before, it would be more fitting on a list of Web best practices. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I intended this page to be a reflection of the key points discussed on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility). If you think some of those points are misguided, I think it would be best to get consensus there on changing them, and to let this page be a slave to that one. I'd like, at some point, for there to be a separate "dos and don'ts" page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability, like this one and the one I created a while ago at WP:DDD. Ultimately, I want to see similar pages summarizing the most important points of every policy, to appeal to the tl;dr crowd. » Swpbτ ¢ 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of the 5 points I removed, one should be discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility) as you said - the point about screen resolution. I removed the point about links because it was of little importance since the issue is rare. I reworded the point about headers to mention the most common issue instead of the rarest one. The three points about interaction, JavaScript and HTML were removed because I believe these issues are too complicated to explain in one short sentence, it would only lead to misunderstandings. I for one I misunderstood them completely.
Concerning the Usability project, it would be good indeed, but it's way too early. The usability project is still a draft as a project, there is not yet any clear goal or structure. Dodoïste (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New template requested — Discreet abbreviation[edit]


See this discussion.

--Nnemo (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some further refinement[edit]

Hi. I think this page is really good and useful. That's why I'd like to suggest a final touch.

I believe this page should contain only the most common advices and issues, in order to be helpful and efficient. Three could be removed.

"Don't use animations exceeding five seconds"
This case is rare, animations are few. And the video is still underdeveloped at Commons, which makes it hard to convert animations to video.
"Don't hide content in collapsed boxes or scrolling sections"
This is false: well-made collapsible boxes are accessible. This should be talking about hidden contents such as the defunct WP:HiddenStructure. These contents are recognized as a bad thing already, and are very scarce.
"Don't break up a line unless absolutely necessary."
Er, I don't know what this could be referring to. Could someone explain? Or shall we remove it?
"Do consider joining WikiProject Accessibility."
Hm, nice ad. :-) But it might be more relevant to write: "Ask to the WikiProject Accessibility when in doubt." Or something similar.

Thoughts? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These changes sound sensible to me. The "don't break up a line unless absolutely necessary" part refers to text in the edit window, where extra line breaks make it a bit harder to navigate the text with a screen reader. It's not that important though, and I've only very rarely encountered that problem. Graham87 01:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just done the changes that you suggested. Graham87 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Graham! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Giano, if you want to quote MOS:COLLAPSE—which is fine with me—there is no good reason not to quote it accurately, which means including the italics that the original uses for emphasis. Also, I think it would be acceptable, but perhaps not necessary, to quote the complete sentence, which additionally permits the collapsing of navboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop tag teaming and edit warring. If you want the whole thing, why keep removing the link to it? No, don't answer that; I have heard sufficient from the Pigsonthewing crowd for one day. Giano  22:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So to the matter at hand over guess work on associations. This page is intended to be a quick overview - not the in's and out's of the guide. Perhaps best to ask those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility (the people familiar with this) to weight in. I am very concerned some people are more focused on an apparent loop hole of wording over the spirit of the guides and thus this page itself.Moxy (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah the sprightly and quick to edit Moxy!  Giano  22:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At some point It would be nice if you could address the problem at hand over making assumptions and in the process insulting people. Thus far you have said not a thing about the current problem - please try an focus on the debate about the wording - not the people. Moxy (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're the one who has raised the disability issue. You are the one who can't click to open an box, and you are the one scuttling and zooming across the encyclopaedia like grease lightning to edit and argue. I am merely watching you trying to move the goalposts also at the speed of grease lighting.  Giano  22:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please for the last time I am asking you to behave in a mature fashion. I am not insulting you or implying your young - just need you to be aware we have basic conduct expectation that we expect all editors to follow. As for moving the goal post and editing all over not sure what you mean - I assume you have noticed I am not involved in any of the edit wars and announced the change to this page. Could you pls fix the http: link to MOS:COLLAPSE - pls pls pls - our advice pages should be formatted correctly for uniformity and style as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking Pls Moxy (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giano, I'm not sure what "removing the link" means. You do realize that and Foo go to exactly the same place, right? I changed the http:// stuff from an external URL to an internal wikilink. That is not normally considered to be "removing the link".
I don't happen to care one way or the other about the presence or absence of the link. I don't happen to care one way or the other about the presence or absence of the quotation. What I do care about is that if and only if we're going to have that quotation, then let us have an accurate quotation, including the specific words highlighted for emphasis in the original. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in favour of the link. What exactly is wrong with the page as it now appears? Kleinzach 04:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello - I dont think we need to go into detlais here - but O well - but right now need to fix the wording and improper link format (link externally not internally). We have to remember this page is to help people and they may have no clue what MOS means. We try to keep page related too Wikipedia basic information and Wikipedia accessibility simple and with no abbreviation. Pls someone fix it so its understandably to all - new or old users alike. This whole process should not be so complicated and unproductive.Moxy (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't' use scrolling lists or collapsible sections to conceal content, unless it is a summary of text already in the article. Per MOS [1]: "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text."

>>No, Moxy. You have tried to move the goalposts so that you can try to win an argument elsewhere. We will leave things exactly as they are. The MOS is quite clear on when one can and cannot collapse. We are not dealing with idiots and you are quite capable of clicking on a link. There is nothing more to be said.  Giano  08:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are aware this is not a guide or a policy right. It just regurgitates what the guide says, Pls see Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays for the differences.Moxy (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sheesh! This is a ridiculous edit war. This page is meant to *concisely* summarise the accessibility guideline. , and links formatted as external links to Wikipedia guidelines are really, really bad style. How about my version? Graham87 08:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the version represented by my last edit. I think it's clearer. Kleinzach 09:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine! rather a long winded way of phrasing a short link on what is a supposed to be a concise page for the disabled. What's more, will the disabled be able to click on it; Moxy has problems clicking on links as he's said many times elsewhere, I think the quote is better as it saves Moxy the stress of and exertion of trying to click.  Giano  08:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pls read over Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Your Fellow Editors when you have some time.Moxy (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've rephrased Graham87's version, I trust uncontroversially — although I prefer the previous version.Kleinzach 11:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks ok to me - linked properly and worded correctly.Moxy (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current version is fine with me.
Can Kleinzach and Giano explain to me why they prefer "Per MOS [2]: "Collapsible sections or cells..." to "Per MOS: "Collapsible sections or cells..." ?
Notice that both of the links go to the same place. The only difference between these two versions is that one of them uses a URL and one of them uses a proper internal wikilink. Why do you prefer an external link instead of an internal link? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds fine to me as well. We should avoid capitalised gibberish wherever possible. Graham87 06:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The earlier version gives the quotation direct — so it is complete in itself — the second one doesn't. See [3]. Kleinzach 07:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really understand why we need a full quotation of a guideline that, like almost everything in Wikipedia, could change at any time. IMO a concise summary would be far better and more in keeping with the spirit of this page (see the comment from the page's creator above). For those who like myself were mystified about why this page had suddenly gotten so much attention, it turns out that it was due to this discussion about infoboxes. Graham87 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not my question. My question is external URL link vs internal wikilink, no matter whether the link is followed by a complete quotation, a partial-and-deformatted quotation (what Giano was editwarrng to keep), or no quotation at all. So: why did you want a URL displayed as a blue "[1]" in the page instead of a wikilink? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redefining the question for tactical advantage becomes tedious if it's done repeatedly, WhatamIdoing. --Kleinzach 05:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to deal with multi-part questions one at a time, however, is normally an effective means of finding common ground. Giano reverted the change from a URL to an internal wikilink that pointed to the same place. It would be helpful to know whether he's still unhappy with using an internal wikilink, or if we can consider that resolved and proceed on to the other two questions, which are (1) shall we quote this at all and (2) if so, shall we quote it accurately or not?. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the present quotation is best left as it is. Moxy has explained (at length) elsewhere how hard it is for the disabled to click a link (turning the computer on must be such an ordeal) so I think it's best to leave things as they are, which must be much easier for Moxy.  Giano  19:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So it's really important to you that the link be presented as a URL, as if to some other website, like this:

Per MOS [4]: "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." .

instead of the far more normal way of linking to that section, which is:

Per MOS: "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." .

I personally favor internal links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not give a fig about how the link is displayed, just so long as Moxy is not forced to click it in order to see what it says.  Giano  20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giano, if you have an argument for including the quotation that doesn't patronise somebody, feel free to present it. Moxy, correct me if I'm wrong, but from the infoboxes discussion, it seems that you have particular difficulty clicking links whose link text is very short (for example a few letters like "show"). Therefore am I right that a link whose text is "MOS" would be far more difficult for you to work with than a link saying "related section of the Manual of Style"? This will be my last revert on this page, and I implore other editors not to act until we hear from Moxy himself. I'd also like to emphasise that this page's target audience is not disabled editors themselves; it is meant to be a brief overview of accessibility guidelines for editors who are unfamiliar with them. Therefore IMO it should use links judiciously and be written as concisely as possible, without using abbreviations that newer editors would be unfamiliar with. Graham87 07:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks just fine now. Size is not a problem for most as all can use Ctrl+. Yes bigger is always better - but we just use tab to get to links anyways (try it - press tab then enter when your on the link you want). As for MOS this means nothing to someone new - full text is always preferred especially in help and informative pages such as this one. Still think the original version was better, simple and to the point without going into the specific politics of the situation. Moxy (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems there is a determination on the part of some people here to remove the quotation "Collapsible sections or cells may be used . . . ." despite two of us consistently asking for it. If we are not going to use it — and it's not absolutely essential in my view — then we should at least make the wording accurate. I've made a correction which I hope improves clarity. Kleinzach 08:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your version is also fine - only the abbreviated, URL linked version is not ok in my opinion (as per the majority). I prefer the original simple version (as seen on the related pages) but understand others think more needs to be said here on the matter. Odd this is so hard on a simple page that is only viewed about 5 times a day.Moxy (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not patronising Moxy; I am merely quoting him. I do nt care how the link is displayed, but the quotation must remain.  Giano  09:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latest version, with the quotation, and WhatamIdoing's preferred style link, is satisfactory IMO. Let's leave this now. Kleinzach 09:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, sounds alright here. Graham87 09:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's much better. Nice and clear and save having to click on the link at all. I must concern myself in these matter more often.  Giano  10:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All improvements are welcome be it to policies or advice pages like this. Before venturing into this complicated stressful realm I suggest to all editors to read over General recommendations.15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the quotation is necessary, or even desirable, but I don't really care whether it's there. If it's going to be there, I'd like to have it be legible and accurate.
  1. Why are we using italic text for the whole quotation? It's harder for some people to read, and consequently its use for whole sentences and paragraphs has been discouraged since before the web was invented.
  2. Why are we omitting the emphasis that the original MOS page included on two words? If we're going to quote it, we should quote it accurately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto. Good points there, so I've implemented them. The other concern I have with adding the quote is that it may become out of sync with the guideline. Graham87 03:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a common problem, and there's no good solution for it. We'll just have to carefully watch the source if we're going to keep the quotation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]