On 13 January 2014 15:43, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: While I applaud the initiative - and am happy to contribute my effort to making the WMUK wiki as accessible as we aim to do for Wikipedia and other WMF projects - I note that that page says "Elements of this page re-use copyrighted material from the Royal National Institute of Blind People, with kind permission", while carrying a CC-by-SA licence. Does their permission run to re-licence their content this way? And does WMUK policy differ from en.Wikipedia's, in this regard? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jon Davies wrote: 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/>