Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Converting main page to CSS

Hi all,

I'm afraid that I thought I had a solution to this issue, but when I implemented it I broke the main page :-( I am rather sorry that I did that. However, it is possible to convert from tables to divs and apply styles. Given that HTML should be about structuring information, and not really about layout, I would like to see a lot more div tags and a lot less table tags!

Our current main page is actually quite hard to skin. For instance, I wanted to include, in my own css file, line-spacing changes. However, these changes break the main page for me. If the main page had the infoboxes in div tags, then it would be a lot simpler to implement this change.

A trial is currently at User:Ta bu shi da yu/MainPage2, there are significant problems with my markup, however. If anyone could help, I'd much appreciate this! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be overjoyed if people could help you with this. (and converting the Community Portal and Help:Contents redesigns into CSS layouts too). -Quiddity 17:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The use of tables for layout in templates and whatnot is so rampant it makes me want to cry. Vagary 09:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Regular users can't edit the site-wide CSS, so it's all they can do. It's better than no layout... — Omegatron 13:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made a version of the main page using inline CSS. Please view it at User:OliverRigby/CSS Main Page and feel free to make any comments, alterations and suggestions. There is a short discussion at Talk:Main Page#The_main_page_rewritten_in_inline_CSS regarding this at the moment. Many thanks. -OliverRigby (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments requested

There's a thread at Template talk:Navigation bar about the usability of the recently created template:Navigation bar. Please comment there if you're interested in this. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox accessibility issue

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:cquote is up for deletion

Template:cquote, which formats block quotations as a table with purple quotation marks linked to image pages, has been proposed for deletion. Please vote or comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 12#Template:Cquote. —Michael Z. 2006-12-13 17:20 Z

And it's already been closed. I knew as soon as I put the TfD template on it, they'd come running. — Omegatron 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Gah. And agreed, that's a ghastly template. Next time... -Quiddity 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] browser testing of backround transparent image

Hi! Hopefully this is good forum to ask help for browser testing of one idea I have.

Namely I try to enable blended background image to be used for example in navigation box headers. It's easy to do in (new) non-IE browsers, but IE would need some "hacking". In my commons page ( commons:User:TarmoK/wikibar ) I have made test page to test the solution for it and it works for IE6, FF and Opera, but I'd be glad to get help with other browsers, especially IE7 and as well Mac-s browsers.

If you have free moment to take little time to do small addition to your monobook.css in commons and then check this test page (and update the table in bottom of page), I'll be greatful. Thank you in advance and all comments are welcome --TarmoK 13:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Clickable images from Portals

The user Suruena has created the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images and has gone to all the portals and removed their clickable links. Mainly in the links to other WikiProjects section. I noticed this project does not link Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images on its mainpage. I also noticed its a policy that has only had one contributor: Suruena. Personally, removing the links is a major disadvantage to the portals and I am tempted to report it as vandalism. Mkdwtalk 04:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As discussed in different places [1][2][3], {{click}} is very a problematic template (CSS hack with usability, accessibility, browser-compatibility, and even copyright problems). And although in its documentation it clearly says "Do not use this template unless absolutely necessary," it is frequently abused (it was used even in a user signature!). I understand that clickable images are nice, but it simply has too many problems (AFAIK MediaWiki currently has specific syntax for clickable images, but it is disabled in the Wikipedia, think why). In the last vote for deletion the consensus was delete, but it can't be deleted because this template was used in thousand of pages (this is the fact it was heavily abused). So I started this wikiproject to change that dangerous trend. The experienced wikipedians that participated in that vote for deletion, some members of the accessibility project, and some administrators have helped me in my task (and acknowledged the policy), but currently I'm the only active contributor to this project. Probably this means I started the project too quickly (more collaborators are welcome), and this is all my fault (maybe a link from the main page of the Usability WikiProject will help, what do you think?). However, I have changed several hundred pages and very, very few people has complained (only two wikipedians), the rest agree with the policy and even have thanked me.
I hope this response helped to change your mind about the vandalism issue, but I'm agree with you probably I wasn't able to explain correctly the project. Thanks, and sorry for this very long text! :-) Best regards, --surueña 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What suruena said. 'click' is a bad hack that needs to disappear. (thanks from me too, suruena, for putting energy into fixing/removing it :) —Quiddity 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a an example of a small group of people in Wikipedia imposing their will on the whole of wikipedia against the wishes of other editors. --- Safemariner 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Does this mean we wont be able to use pictures as links? --Seans Potato Business 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It is possible to use the new ImageMap extension to provide the same functionality -- clickable images. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Usability/Clickable_images#Extension:ImageMap. --Aude (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How did you pounce on my message so quickly? :D --Seans Potato Business 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm watching this page. I'd be glad to help if you try ImageMaps and can't get it to work correctly. --Aude (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks. It's okay, I don't make clickable pictures - I just wanted to know if it was still possible. :) --Seans Potato Business 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Spoken Articles - Priority To Those That Need Them

It would be nice if there was a place where visually impaired people might go to request that an article is turned into a spoken version, assuming that they would really prefer this over their computer's own text-to-speach capability. --Seans Potato Business 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests. --Quiddity 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoS and accessibility

Participants here may be interested in the following Wikipedia Manual of Style debate: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Appending a period. The gist is that the MoS current says to leave the period off of abbreviations of units of measurement, entirely, when this is really only appropriate for some of them, such as mm, km, dB, etc., and is not appropriate for those that are abbreviations of Imperial/American units such as feet, inches, miles, etc., which have traditionally used periods, and do so with the recommendations of the vast majority of style guides. The usability issue can be illustrated with an example: "The rod is 40.6 cm (16 in) in length" (or worse yet, "has 40.6 cm (16 in) sides"; screen readers (at least some of them) are going to say "16 in sides" which will sound like "16 insides". Some of the MoS regulars are strongly resistant to the idea of restoring periods here, and I suspect that only usability/accessibility concerns are going to make a dent with them. PS: There are several other debates relating to updating this subsection of the dates and numbers section of MoS, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Overhaul "Units of measurement" section which may be of some usability interest. I fear that the main debate I'm mentioning here is rarely raised because it is shouted down with "This is old news! We don't want to talk about it again!" attitudes (a quick review of that talk page shows several blantant examples of this ignoring of WP:CCC already); its going to take more than just me to get this fixed, I believe. PS: even from a sighted-user usability vs. accessibility issue, the current MoS-recommended practice is terrible, since English speakers parse the string "in" as a preposition not as an abbreviation for "inch(es)". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox issues

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for discussion, but I wonder if there is any specific project aimed at resolving issues between different browsers showing templates etc. differently. For example, this template is practically illegible in FF but fine in MSIE. I want to have a go at resolving it, but wonder if there is a place where I can get assistance?

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 11:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Check my reply at the template talk page. I was able to fix one little thing. I'll see what I can do about the squashy-ness. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I already sorted the squashy-ness (compare it to this) as someone has removed a parameter they thought was superfluous, but was required in Mozilla.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help pages

As someone recently aptly commented, Wikipedia's help pages are a "mind-numbing maze". There is page after page after page of different people explaining different aspects of the same thing in different ways, link after link which one has to follow, seemingly without end, without ever having any clue about where one "is" in this maze. In five minutes I found NINETEEN different pages that explain different aspects of how to create links. After that I lost the will to live.

Is there any ongoing effort to try to clean up these pages? If there is then I may be able to contribute from time to time when I'm feeling enthusiastic. Matt 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.127.107 (talk)

Yes, but it's inactive currently: Wikipedia:Help Project. Believe me, it's even more complicated than you think. Anyone trying to clean up our help pages inevitably realizes that one really has synchronously coordinate a cleanup of meta:help:contents and mw:help:contents too, which is a monumental task. --Quiddity 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animated Picture of the Day

The current Picture of the day, Image:Translational motion.gif is extremely distracting; it may well cause problems for users with cognitive disabilities. It appears to breach WAI-WCAG Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. I've proposed that it be replaced ASAP, and that we have an agreement to only use still images for PotD in future? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WAI / Section 508

I got a question from a large teaching/research institution intending to introduce Mediawiki: Has Mediawiki been tested against WAI and/or Section 508 standards with regards to disabled users in general and users with impaired vision in particular. Does anyone here know anything about this? Cnyborg 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminating {{click}}

{{click}} is a usability problem. It's widely used, and in many cases, that use is replaceable with ImageMap. I've been, over a while, converting easily convertible instances of the template to roughly equivalent ImageMap code. Just recently I wrote a program in AppleScript that does the conversion automatically, which has sped up my efforts tremendously. If anyone else in the Usability project is using Mac OS X and wants to help out converting things, the script is at User:Nihiltres/Click-to-ImageMap and is useful for quick copy-paste-script-copy-paste conversions that are much faster than manual conversion. The script warns in the case that the conversion is obviously not valid syntax (i.e. does not contain an image or a link, or uses template or parameter references incompatible with ImageMap). It was a quick write-up once I had the idea to do it, though the code's still a bit messy. If someone finds this useful, let me know. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 15:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)