-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jon Davies wrote:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Accessibility_of_the_Wikimedia_UK_website
This paper has been written by Carol Campbell a trustee of Wikimedia
UK. She is very interested in 'getting the ball rolling' on issues
around accessibility on Wikipedia and all other wikis. She is fairly
certain that this is not the first time these issues have been raised
but would like to commit to bringing together people interested in
finding answers to some of the challenges she is raising. Please add
your names below and offer any background or insights you may have.
Thanks.
I just looked through the document.
Colour and colour contrast are all reasonable points. Wikimedia sites
have had a nasty habit of relying only on colour (usually of a low
contrast) for semantic purposes, usually because Wikipedia template
creators don't really ever think about accessibility.
Image alt text is a hard skill to get right. MediaWiki supports it using
the `alt` parameter on images, but it's different from a caption. They
serve a different function: an alt text describes the image as an
alternative to seeing the image while a caption supplements the image.
As for image maps: there's only sixty image maps on English Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_image_maps
I expect there are none on WMUK, nor should there be. They should be a
very rare thing indeed.
Images of text shouldn't happen... except sometimes there is a very good
reason to. For instance, if it's text in an ancient language that we
have yet to produce a text representation of (although Unicode *does*
have ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs).
The multimedia sections are fine, but the advice is oriented towards
organisations who have the resources to produce text alternatives.
Wikimedia doesn't have those resources. Volunteers aren't exactly
queuing up to transcribe videos.
Working out how we reach a certain quality of accessibility using
volunteers is hard. There's also a utilitarian line to be drawn here.
Per pound spent or volunteer hour spent, is it more important to ensure
that, say, Wikimedia UK's website is accessible, or is it more important
to ensure Wikipedia is accessible? I'd suggest that perhaps there might
be more value in worrying about the accessibility of the project sites
rather than the chapter site.
- --
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=4mT7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----