This may seem like a bit of a weird question, but how can we get a to a
meaninful consensus with this? As is we seem to have quite a few folks
on different sides of things with different ideas of what's proper, and
usually good reasons behind these conflicting ideas. How can we address
that in a way that would work best for the platform that is important to
all of us?
-I
On 20/02/14 21:28, Trevor Parscal wrote:
Ryan, +1
I'm pretty sure that what Ryan is asking for here is not a rehash or
critique of guidelines, but a plan to collect the good parts of
existing one and supplement them where needed to create a single
coherent non-conflicting set of guidelines we can all point to,
discuss, evolve and seek to conform to.
Perhaps more direct questions will get more direct answers.
* Who is going to lead this work?
* Who is going to commit to actively participate?
* Where will this work be done?
* When will this work be done?
- Trevor
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Quiddity <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Regarding vision, I found 2 great "impairment simulators", and
have added them to the Accessibility_guide_for_developers page.[1][2]
One other thing to emphasize, beyond typography:
* Tiny clickable-targets are discouraged *
For some users, they are both
* hard to see,
* and hard to position a mouse-pointer over (think carpal
tunnel/arthritis, or just someone using those laptop "nub
pointers"[3])
This most recently came up in regards to the tiny [x] close-icon
on a centralnoticebanner. (it was fixed)
HTH.
Quiddity
[1]
http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign2/simsoftware/simsoftware.html
[2]
http://www.cnib.ca/en/your-eyes/eye-conditions/eye-connect/Pages/EyeSimulator.aspx
[3] https://xkcd.com/243/
On 14-02-20 11:05 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
In the old days (2011), the WMF had design guidelines that
discussed
accessibility issues such as appropriate font sizes, use of
colors, and
text contrast. These guidelines were later replaced with the Agora
guidelines
(https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Design)
which specify only that "We must enable access for users with
impairments."
Accessibility is central to our mission as an organization and
very
important to our community. In fact the en.wiki community has
enacted
their own comprehensive accessibility guidelines for content:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accessibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accessibility_dos_and_don'ts
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accessibility_dos_and_don%27ts>
Mediawiki developers also have a set of published
accessibility guidelines:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Accessibility_guide_for_developers
The issue of accessibility in MediaWiki UX design has been raised
numerous times in the recent past, most commonly in regard to
font sizes
and colors. I'm personally aware of it coming up at least 5
times in the
past year (Typography Refresh, Flow, Echo, Mobile, NavPopups).
Rather
than rehashing the same discussions each time, I would
encourage the
design team to come up with a new set of accessibility
guidelines that
everyone can refer to and agree on. I would encourage stealing
ideas
from the en.wiki guidelines and the WCAG guidelines
(http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/). I would also
suggest that
the design team invest in a pair of scratched-up coke-bottle
glasses
that each design mock-up can be tested with :)
Ryan Kaldari
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
