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%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
Body text color #222222, no other text lighter than #555555. No serif font blocks. No font size smaller than 11 point.
On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org 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%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 Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
--- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Generally speaking, contrast requirements should vary by size/weight. Unless it's larger text, you don't want any lighter than #333, but ideally the body text should always be #000 if it's on a light background. (If this causes eye strain it's usually a problem with the specific font, the monitor, or the font rendering of the system itself, and with lower-end monitors it's the lighter text that causes far more problems.)
Minimum font sizes should take into consideration different fonts, OSes, and screens, too. Consider an example of arial vs verdana: on my computer, arial becomes illegible under 10px, but verdana can often still be read down to 8px (and 8px verdana is apparently equivalent to 10px arial). On a windows 7, both become illegible under 10px, but render about the same at 10px.
This is a different problem from just size, however - on a standard screen, there simply aren't enough pixels to render the characters, and while the above were extreme examples, this is already an issue as large as 12px and higher (Vector uses 13px). While hinting and whatnot help to mitigate this, not all systems handle it the same way, or as well, some even completely failing on some fonts.
On the other hand, you often don't see this at all if you're using a high pixel density display because those do have sufficient pixels. But most users do not have access to those.
(Agree about the serif blocks - you get similar effects with serif fonts, and the effects there can be much more extreme.)
-I
On 20/02/14 19:11, Brandon Harris wrote:
Body text color #222222, no other text lighter than #555555. No serif font blocks. No font size smaller than 11 point.
On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org 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%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 Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
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.... [2] http://www.cnib.ca/en/your-eyes/eye-conditions/eye-connect/Pages/EyeSimulato... [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%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
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 pandiculation@gmail.com 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%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 Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Thanks for starting this discussion Ryan. I'm willing to help anyway I can.
I can volunteer to put together a design accessibility document (which will have parts borrowed from a few different sources).
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Trevor Parscal <tparscal@wikimedia.orgjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tparscal@wikimedia.org');
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 <pandiculation@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pandiculation@gmail.com');
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%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 Design@lists.wikimedia.orgjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Design@lists.wikimedia.org'); https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.orgjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Design@lists.wikimedia.org'); https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
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 <pandiculation@gmail.com mailto:pandiculation@gmail.com> 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 Design@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Design@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
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 zhorishna@gmail.com 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 pandiculation@gmail.comwrote:
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.... [2] http://www.cnib.ca/en/your-eyes/eye-conditions/eye-connect/Pages/EyeSimulato... [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%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
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 <zhorishna@gmail.com mailto:zhorishna@gmail.com> 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 <pandiculation@gmail.com> 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 Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Moiz, thank you for your productive approach.
- Trevor
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
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 zhorishna@gmail.com 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 pandiculation@gmail.comwrote:
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.... [2] http://www.cnib.ca/en/your-eyes/eye-conditions/eye-connect/Pages/EyeSimulato... [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%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 listDesign@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Design mailing list Design@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design
Moiz Syed, 21/02/2014 19:39:
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.�
I assume you are in contact with Hoo, TheDJ and they TAO folks for this, right?
Nemo