35:
444:
lowercase, although MediaWiki really sent the page with the title in uppercase) but if JavaScript was disabled the fallback solution was to still render the old hatnote (so I suppose this is what all screen readers and text-only browsers showed, and thus accessible). But now it seems that MediaWiki implements a new attribute (DISPLAYTITLE) to really generate pages with lowercase titles. So now it doesn't matter when the
278:" of volunteers: even the guidelines are revised by just a relative handful of people. For that reason, the content is often hollow, sparse, and marginal, as compared to writings by full-time staff writers. As a consequence, the Knowledge policies rarely get the help and reviews that are needed. No one should feel blamed for the lowered content; it is a monumental task even if there were full-time pay. -
195:, the article seems to be a long, rambling laundry list of issues. The article needs a short, succinct intro section to summarize "Ten Things I Hate about You and Your Writing" to, at least, try to focus on ten guidelines a writer should know before losing interest in Knowledge. (Actually, the Top 7 would be better, but the Top 10 is probably needed to accommodate the current rambling). -
822:
760:
683:
396:
300:
217:
167:
127:
251:
section summarizing the issues being presented. OMG, just think: with unknown acronyms and no lede section, just imagine how unreadable the remainder of the article could be. I won't generate a laundry list of complaints: people simply need to realize the article needs to be rewritten, then ask for
443:
Interesting question, but I'm not sure what do you want to ask. AFAIK, initially this template just reported that the article's title must be in lower case, but due to technical limitations (MediaWiki features) it wasn't possible. Later, it added some JavaScript to "fake" the title (rendered it with
497:
in the title display. What I was wondering was, if the disambiguation template is placed above the lowercase template, will the latter template still lower-case the display--that is, will it still function as intended? When I moved the disambig template to the top, everything seemed to work fine in
102:
finally released in June a draft of its WCAG 1.0 errata. This errata is not published by the W3C but by a group of accessibility experts, but I think they are sound and a real improvement updating these guidelines to current web technologies. For example, I've just removed the requirement to use an
145:" is that it hit me like "Here's the wheelchair article but anyway". Perhaps a short paragraph should be added to explain the term "browser" versus "screen reader" and such: it could be linked to the lede section as one sentence linked to a fuller section later in the article. -
541:
Never mind: It does the same thing (give different displays in "Show preview" vs. "Show changes" view) even with the lowercase template on top. Poor scientific method on my part; I should have checked both ways when I first noticed the difference.
106:
as explained in the errata. It's true that actually nobody uses it (neither me), and it doesn't offer any real accessibility improvement (the same info can be written in the article's text, so it will be available to every reader).
331:. Overly technical articles might be only 2% (if that) of the total article base, hence 98% of writing does not need to worry about revising technical articles. I've tried simplifying dozens of those very complex articles (see:
833:
I've never heard of a "form name" before, does that mean "button", or is there a longer list of words that shouldn't be used in headings, and if so, why? Quote: one of the form names on the page, like "search" or "go". - Dan
247:" to make the article more readable and usable. Within just a few sentences, the article starts talking about "TOC" with no concern to try showing "table of contents (TOC)" to introduce the acronym. Also, there's really no
498:
the "Preview" view, but in the "Show changes" view, the article title was rendered capitalized. So I moved the dab hatnote back down before I saved, in case it was messing something up. But you are saying that the
726:. The simple solution would be to remove support for it in the reflist template, however, some users suggested it might be better to have a policy change? (I'm guessing they where referring to
110:
The drafts of the second W3C accessibility guidelines, WCAG 2.0, have been very criticised, so from my point of view we should stick with WCAG 1.0 + Samurai errata. What do you think? Cheers —
746:
437:
589:, but about that this template doesn't have any accessibility issues with respect its placement at the page (I don't know if it has any restriction to work properly). Cheers, —
657:
633:
562:
897:
808:
638:
I just tested it, and the order has no effect on the performance of the templates. Logically, the DAB tag should go above the lc one, as the lc one operates on/is about
862:
593:
528:
470:
380:
337:), and I recommend a spinoff guideline to address the ultra-intellectual issues of technical writing. Just try simplifying several of those "too technical" articles ("
740:
85:
80:
75:
63:
618:
than start talk page threads about it. If there's a problem revealed by the test, it would then be useful to use the talk page to suggest changes (or just
204:
356:
734:
665:
154:
793:
388:
779:(in all lowercase) leads to "make technical articles accessible"? Was this intentional, because it's messing me up and I can't be the only one...!?
287:
261:
407:
The guidelines specify that disambiguating hatnotes should always go on top. Does this still apply in cases where the article uses the template
114:
843:
224:
Complainant resolved much of problem him/herself, and guideline is frequently worked on by others (WP as usual); no new specific complaints.
366:
315:
21:
365:
Re: "I recommend a spinoff guideline to address the ultra-intellectual issues of technical writing"... Um, that's what
104:
879:
704:
462:
when it did that in the past it should be placed below the disambiguation links. Have I answered to your question?
347:"), and it becomes clear that there are numerous high-tech issues to address, beyond where to place an infobox. -
713:
159:
51:
17:
266:
292:
178:
doesn't apply; ToC provides 11 (close to 10) such desired bullet points. No further complains in 7 months.
252:
reviewers. Guidelines need to be written to the highest standards, above just featured-article content. -
333:
119:
42:
886:, this is no longer a problem, not even in the JAWS version I used in 2006. Therefore I'll remove it.
727:
882:, this is very rare and form names are very bad section titles anyway. In fact, per my testing at
307:
No one else interested in thread in which proponent !votes against own proposal, in over 7 months.
403:
Largely mooted by MediaWiki changes; order should be DAB first lc second for basic logic reasons.
320:
244:
232:
142:
883:
858:
789:
417:? Or would having something above that template interfere with its function? Just wondering. --
209:
752:
555:
521:
430:
235:" seems to violate so many aspects of accessibility and readability that it hit me like wiki-
701:
239:. If everything in Knowledge weren't already iffy, I would have recommended pulling this "
93:
730:?). So if you have any thoughts about that please consider taking part in the discussion.
8:
814:
191:
892:
804:
583:
502:
483:
448:
411:
341:
854:
780:
607:
352:
283:
257:
200:
150:
579:
OK, understood. But note that I didn't said anything about the correct behaviour of
839:
776:
772:
720:
670:
649:
625:
543:
509:
418:
372:
186:
697:
274:
In most areas of
Knowledge, the content is being written and condensed by mere "
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
619:
175:
888:
800:
490:
275:
240:
508:
template should function correctly no matter where it appears on the page?--
590:
467:
348:
279:
253:
196:
146:
111:
479:
I think so, although I wasn't thinking about any hatnote generated by the
878:, like the title of an edit box, a button, a check box etc. As I said in
835:
134:
Screen reader, etc., now linked, no further complaints in over 7 months.
875:
458:
of accessibility) because it doesn't generate a hatnote anymore, but
236:
829:
Moot; problem no longer applies, guideline updated to reflect this.
248:
849:
I'm not adept with HTML, but looking at this page's code,
99:
642:
page, while the DAB is a meta-level above that, saying "
185:
Although no one is buying time by making the article a "
489:
template. The particular article I was looking at was
716:about whether to remove multicolumn support from
880:my first writings on accessibility in Knowledge
606:It is usually more effective to simply go to a
493:, which the template causes to be rendered as
141:One of the problems I have with the article "
367:Knowledge:Make technical articles accessible
316:Knowledge:Make technical articles accessible
874:What I meant was the title of a field in a
696:"Howzat for a provocative headline, eh?" —
389:Lowercase article titles and DAB hatnotes
103:HTML 'summary' attribute to data tables
463:
14:
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
690:Just a pointer to another discussion.
459:
455:
29:
775:(in all uppercase) leads here, but
712:There have been some discussion on
27:
28:
911:
174:Guidelines are not articles, and
820:
758:
681:
394:
298:
215:
165:
125:
33:
790:
782:
98:Hi, I've just noticed that the
781:
18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style
13:
1:
115:13:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
357:10:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
288:10:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
262:10:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
205:10:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
155:10:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
7:
898:08:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
863:01:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
853:might be another problem.
844:20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
658:23:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
634:23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
381:23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
10:
916:
818:
756:
679:
392:
334:Discrete Fourier transform
296:
213:
163:
123:
646:may not be your page". —
594:23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
563:20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
529:19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
471:19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
438:17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
318:" be merged with article
809:17:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
794:06:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
771:Anyone else notice that
747:21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
321:Knowledge:Accessibility
245:Physician, heal thyself
233:Knowledge:Accessibility
143:Knowledge:Accessibility
884:User:Graham87/sandbox5
243:" until after trying "
160:1001 Wikipedian Nights
714:Template talk:Reflist
46:of past discussions.
767:Inconsistency fixed.
666:Multiple columns in
454:is placed (from the
293:Merge with technical
192:1001 Arabian Nights
189:" in the sense of
120:Wheelchair article
610:and test whether
559:
525:
434:
91:
90:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
907:
895:
830:
824:
823:
791:
787:
786:
768:
762:
761:
743:
737:
725:
719:
691:
685:
684:
675:
669:
652:
628:
588:
582:
560:
557:
553:
548:
526:
523:
519:
514:
507:
501:
488:
482:
465:
461:
457:
453:
447:
435:
432:
428:
423:
416:
410:
404:
398:
397:
375:
346:
340:
314:Should article "
308:
302:
301:
225:
219:
218:
187:shaggy dog story
179:
169:
168:
135:
129:
128:
72:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
915:
914:
910:
909:
908:
906:
905:
904:
893:
831:
828:
826:
821:
817:
769:
766:
764:
759:
755:
741:
735:
723:
717:
707:
692:
689:
687:
682:
678:
673:
667:
648:
624:
617:
613:
586:
580:
556:
549:
544:
522:
515:
510:
505:
499:
486:
480:
451:
445:
431:
424:
419:
414:
408:
405:
402:
400:
395:
391:
371:
344:
338:
309:
306:
304:
299:
295:
269:
226:
223:
221:
216:
212:
180:
173:
171:
166:
162:
136:
133:
131:
126:
122:
96:
68:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
913:
903:
902:
901:
900:
868:
866:
865:
819:
816:
813:
812:
811:
757:
754:
751:
732:
710:
709:
700:
680:
677:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
615:
611:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
534:
533:
532:
531:
474:
473:
393:
390:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
360:
359:
297:
294:
291:
276:skeleton crews
268:
267:Skeleton crews
265:
214:
211:
210:Thou hypocrite
208:
164:
161:
158:
124:
121:
118:
95:
92:
89:
88:
83:
78:
73:
66:
56:
55:
38:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
912:
899:
896:
891:
890:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
785:
778:
774:
753:What the...?!
750:
749:
748:
744:
738:
729:
722:
715:
708:
706:
703:
699:
694:
693:
672:
659:
656:
653:
651:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
632:
629:
627:
621:
609:
605:
604:
595:
592:
585:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
564:
561:
554:
552:
547:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
530:
527:
520:
518:
513:
504:
496:
492:
491:Go! (airline)
485:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
469:
450:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
429:
427:
422:
413:
382:
379:
376:
374:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
343:
336:
335:
330:
327:
326:
325:
323:
322:
317:
313:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
264:
263:
259:
255:
250:
246:
242:
241:advice column
238:
234:
231:The article "
230:
207:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
188:
184:
177:
157:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
117:
116:
113:
108:
105:
101:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
71:
67:
65:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
22:Accessibility
19:
887:
867:
855:WhatamIdoing
850:
840:send/receive
832:
783:
770:
731:
711:
695:
654:
647:
643:
639:
630:
623:
620:go make them
614:will affect
550:
545:
516:
511:
494:
425:
420:
406:
377:
370:
332:
328:
319:
312:30-Jan-2008:
311:
310:
272:30-Jan-2008:
271:
270:
229:30-Jan-2008:
228:
227:
190:
183:30-Jan-2008:
182:
181:
139:30-Jan-2008:
138:
137:
109:
100:WCAG Samurai
97:
94:WCAG Samurai
69:
47:
41:
815:Form names?
784:L'Aquatique
650:SMcCandlish
626:SMcCandlish
495:go! airline
373:SMcCandlish
40:This is an
799:Fixed. --
698:superluser
676:deemed bad
777:wp:access
773:WP:ACCESS
584:lowercase
503:lowercase
484:lowercase
449:lowercase
412:lowercase
342:technical
237:hypocrisy
86:Archive 5
81:Archive 4
76:Archive 3
70:Archive 2
64:Archive 1
851:fulltext
825:Resolved
801:Quiddity
763:Resolved
686:Resolved
399:Resolved
303:Resolved
220:Resolved
170:Resolved
130:Resolved
20: |
721:reflist
671:reflist
655:‹(-¿-)›
631:‹(-¿-)›
608:sandbox
591:surueña
468:surueña
378:‹(-¿-)›
349:Wikid77
329:Heck no
280:Wikid77
254:Wikid77
197:Wikid77
176:WP:LEAD
147:Wikid77
112:surueña
43:archive
889:Graham
836:Dank55
551:Skewed
517:Skewed
426:Skewed
369:is. —
622:). —
546:Shelf
512:Shelf
421:Shelf
16:<
876:form
859:talk
805:talk
742:talk
736:Apis
644:this
640:this
558:Talk
524:Talk
433:Talk
353:talk
284:talk
258:talk
249:lede
201:talk
151:talk
728:MoS
464:HTH
460:IMO
456:POV
894:87
861:)
842:)
827:–
807:)
765:–
745:)
733:—
724:}}
718:{{
688:–
674:}}
668:{{
587:}}
581:{{
542:--
506:}}
500:{{
487:}}
481:{{
452:}}
446:{{
415:}}
409:{{
401:–
355:)
345:}}
339:{{
324:?
305:–
286:)
260:)
222:–
203:)
172:–
153:)
132:–
857:(
838:(
803:(
739:(
705:c
702:t
616:y
612:x
466:—
351:(
282:(
256:(
199:(
149:(
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.