The single biggest problem, Michael, is that when one talks in the abstract, we end up chasing illusory problems that don't actually have any impact. It's very difficult to create systems that are always 100% accessible by all if we start by trying to second-guess what accessibility problems visitors might encounter. What we need is a well-advertised "clearing centre" where anybody who experiences an accessibility problem on one of our sites can register their problem, which would then allow us to examine it and provide the most effective solution. I'm quite happy to continue giving advice on the issues covered at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility and I'd like to see it adopted as default on the WMUK Wiki, but I question the value of volunteers re-inventing the wheel by chasing "gaps" that I'm not at all sure actually exist. -- Doug On 15 January 2014 11:08, Michael Maggs <michael(a)maggs.name> wrote: Can WMUK collaborate with WMDE (and others) on this to push it forward? Obviously a lot of good work has already been done, but perhaps it now needs some long term commitment and leadership to ensure that what has been done is made easily accessible, and to work on filling gaps in functionality (covering all aspects of disability). Michael WMUK Chair > On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:34, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > > How about starting with what a 'ULS' is? That would help :) > > >> On 15 January 2014 08:50, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hoi, >> One obvious point to start is the functionality of the ULS. It already >> serves one function for people who have a handicap with their perception. >> It has the OpenDyslexic font for people with dyslexia. There are multiple >> ways functionality can be provided who have a visual handicap. The size of >> the characters can be increased, the colour scheme can be changed (some >> people only see yellow on white..) >> >> If there is one thing wrong with the ULS, it is not in the functionality >> but by the utter lack of visibility. ULS is a major component of MediaWiki >> and it is not given prominence, Truly how are people going to find >> OpenDyslexic... (we are talking about 7 to 10% of a population)... >> >> Work is done to get more support for webfonts on mobile phones.. It is >> being developed. >> Thanks, >> GerardM

On 15 January 2014 11:44, rexx <rexx(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: question I echo Doug's comments, and have three points and a suggestion to add: The first step should be to ask WMF what work is already in hand. Accessibility professionals always recommend testing sites (or planned changes to them with a variety of real users, who have a range of disabilities, and who use a variety of assistive tools. The biggest barrier in my experience is community resistance to accessibility improvements (witness the alt text issue referred to on the parallel discussion on the WMUK wiki, where alt text descriptions of images were deemed "too subjective" and "unverifiable"). I suggest we ask Bruce Lawson, accessibility and web standards advocate (disclosure; and a personal friend) with Opera (the browser vendor) to review Wikipedia and one to two sister sites, and give a talk at Wikimania (or, if he's not available, to recommend someone who can). -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Hoi, I am talking with the Polish chapter to extend the functionality of the OpenDyslexic font ... I am waiting for their GO/NOGO. Thanks, GerardM On 15 January 2014 12:08, Michael Maggs &lt;michael(a)maggs.name&gt; wrote: been size (some functionality _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>