This 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.AccessibilityWikipedia:WikiProject AccessibilityTemplate:WikiProject AccessibilityAccessibility
Looking thru Category:Cleanup templates, I don't see any tags specifically calling out accessibility issues. I'm thinking that we could have a couple to flag issues with articles like "This article may not have sufficient color contrast" or "This article uses tables lacking semantic data (captions and scopes)" or "This article uses tables with column headers". This could be useful for users who don't feel confident directly editing complex tables without messing them up or who may not be able to figure out appropriate color contrast themselves. Do others think that a few tags like this would be handy? If so, which other kinds of tags could/should we have? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar question. I've been unable to find any tags regarding animations. I also tried video. Is there a page which lists all the templates relevant to accessibility? Even a general template called "accessibility (see talk page)" would do. I really want something to attract attention, other than a talk page topic.
Please see e.g. List of acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 2024, specifically its sidebar, which is headed "Part of a series on British law" and contains several hundred links to similar articles for other years. The links are arranged in groups of up to five.
I tried unsuccessfully to find where Category:Articles with insufficient color contrast is being created. All of the content in that category is sports-related. I tracked from that category to Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast to Geelong West Giants. Examining the wikicode for that page, I'm not seeing any templates or categories on that page that would cause it to be added to a category. So I'm guessing there's a module somewhere that detects contrast issues on those pages and created the respective categories. The module's -- if that's what it is -- behavior is not ideal; it doesn't place a block on the Geelong West Giants page to call attention to the contrast issue to editors. But I don't know for sure what's happening and it's a mystery to me. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<includeonly>{{main other|{{Ensure AA contrast ratio|base={{{color1|}}}|other={{{color2|}}}|category=[[Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}</includeonly>
@Redrose64: Ah, thank you, that was opaque to me. It might be better if the problematic template were tracked rather than the article, in order to make the issue easier to find. Just a thought. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, they are implemented inconsistently with one another, which decreases usability and adds cognitive load for tracking pages with problems. It would be good to harmonize how these templates handle tracking.
Finally, it needs to be determined whether these templates are to only be tracked for articles or for all major page types (Articles, Templates, Categories, and Files).
@Thisisnotatest: For {{Cleanup colors}}, you're misreading the template code. The part that you show above is nothing to do with tracking accessibility issues, it's part of the code to check if the template has been used correctly. Here's the rest of it:
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}
This is what might be called a preliminary check. Put simply: this template must be transcluded (i.e. {{cleanup colors|date=September 2024}}) and not substituted (i.e. {{subst:cleanup colors|date=September 2024}}), and that is what the test is ensuring.
The actual banner follows directly after, and looks like this (with non-relevant parts either contracted or replaced by an ellipsis):
{{Ambox| name = Cleanup-colors
| type = content
| image = ...
| issue = This article '''uses colour as the only way to convey important information.'''| fix = To meet Wikipedia's web accessibility guidelines, please help improve this ...
| date ={{{date|}}}| all = Wikipedia articles with colour accessibility problems
}}
Actually, I can't tell whether those templates point out errors (and so would belong on Category:Accessibility issue tracking categories) or correct errors (so would not need to be tracked). I put a comment on the three respective talk pages asking for clarification. Further, editing two of them are restricted to official template editors and administrators, so I have no way to add the category to the code. Further, there are differences between those templates and the currently categorized tracking templates. Guess I'll need to wait for them to respond or else post a query at the Village Pump (technical) before I can proceed further. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thisisnotatest: You are misunderstanding what I have written on this page and elsewhere (was it really necessary to start so many discussions?): Template:Greater color contrast ratio does not categorise at all, whereas the other two templates only categorise if category syntax is explicitly passed in. See my post of 22:04, 27 September 2024 above, specifically the part which says
|category=[[Category:Australian football articles with insufficient color contrast|{{PAGENAME}}]]
@Redrose64: re "was it really necessary to start so many discussions?" I was trying to classify each discussion to be closest to its subject. Were I to start a single discussion instead, I don't have the slightest idea where the proper place would be. And all three templates needed to be better documented to better explain when to use them and what the effect would be of using them. One thing led to another and here we are with multiple overlapping discussions that I started. I'm sorry if it's irritating to you; that was not my intent. It just reflects my confusion over the best way to raise these issues. For me, the best way to raise it is get it as close to the source as possible, since that's where I would look for it to see if someone else had brought it up. I do appreciate your various advice on the various topics. Thisisnotatest (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New WikiProject useful for visually impaired (article audios)
Citing MOS didn't work. A simple clarification didn't work. Detailed explanation and a little humour didn't work.
I'd appreciate assistance from more experienced editors, notably that the MOS guideline isn't a result of consensus. Humpster (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
