Thank you.The clarification is reassuring.
On 21/02/14 18:39, Moiz Syed wrote:
As Ryan mentioned, there are a few documents already started by the
community about Acessibility Guidelines. With the help of the Design
team and others, I will consolidate these best practices into a
document and then the rest of the community can have a dialogue around
it. We can then work on improving the document together.
On Friday, February 21, 2014, Isarra Yos <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]> 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 (Typog
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
