Talk:Wikimedia Accessibility User Group

A request to candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees election

Hello @ProtoplasmaKid, Waltercolor, Discott, GerardM, Fjmustak, Ravidreams, Pavan santhosh.s, AshLin, Raavimohantydelhi, Laurentius, Mike Peel, Rosiestep, Reda Kerbouche, Lionel Scheepmans, Adamw, Vini 175, Yasield, Victoria, and Pundit:. Thanks for being candidate at this 2021 Board of Trustees election.

Some of you are already aware of the Wikimedia Accessibility User Group, as you already joined our Telegram group. In any case, you might have a look at our Meta page to learn more on our group and its aim.

I wanted to know what each of you think about accessibility, at which level it is currently taken into account in our Wikimedia platforms, and what specific actions or guidelines you are attending to promote and defend regarding accessibility if you are elected on the board.

I understand that you might be already greatly solicited with other requests, so even a very brief answer would be very appreciated. If you do reply, please create a subsection with your own name or nickname bellow to hold it. Thank you very much for your attention, and possibly your answer. 🙏 --Psychoslave (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from Pundit (Dariusz Jemielniak)

I think that accessibity is super important, as it is one of the barriers to participation that we can eliminate with technology. I do not feel competent to know which technology we can use. I know, however from our discussions on Telegram, that we're far from optimal. Even the elections page is poorly readable on phone, or parsed. I think it is the role of the WMF community's team to learn and gather feedback from groups such as Accessibility Group, to learn what would work best. If elected to the board, I will endorse such approach and discuss specific accessibility problems worth the team. Pundit (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from ProtoplasmaKid (Iván Martínez)

Hi Mathieu, personally, I have promoted the vision in my interventions in the movement of "leaving no one behind", therefore, I consider accessibility as a fundamental element for inclusion, as important as others such as language. I do not know, for example, how would be an evaluation today of our projects both in reading and editing considering an international document such as the guiding principles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and evaluate the necessary adjustments that would have to be made eventually as a movement. If I am elected to the Board I will try to raise the attention on this concerns. Thanks for the question. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from Adamw (Adam Wight)

Hi, thanks for the invitation. As a developer at both WMF and WMDE, I've seen that our approach to accessibility can be inconsistent. We need to consider this at the beginning of feature design, but sometimes we leave it until the end of a project. We don't have many experts with accessibility experience and many of us have trouble interpreting industry standards like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The solution might be to highlight accessibility as an explicit priority for the movement, use that to form a special-interest group among the staff, and give them funding to do things like set up training for the software department, give them a voice to reform our process by including accessibility in high-level project reporting, and hire experts and more diverse staff who have personal experience in accessible environments. To mention a related topic, my team at WMDE has put a lot of effort into supporting Javascript-free editing, my recollection is that as many as 10% of our (human) visitors might not have sufficient Javascript to support our advanced features, this is a major issue that should be considered everywhere but again has had uneven success so far. —Adamw (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Adamw for sharing this insights. Would you have some kind of reports or anything to back this number of 10% of visitors requiring Javascript-free resources? I would be happy to hear about any other statistical source of information that might pertain to accessibility, during Wikimania I realised that having an accesibility statistic board would be actually an important point for our group, so I'm looking for what is already existing and what could already easily set up with our current infrastructure.

Cheers, Psychoslave (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the nudge to look up the sources—it turns out I was too optimistic about the proportion of visitors getting full Javascript support, task T234695 summarizes some research done in 2020, and estimates that 14% of desktop users and 36% of mobile users are experiencing a degraded interface, with what we are calling Grade C or X rather than Grade A browser support. There is another open task T232783, to compile these statistics on an ongoing basis. Feel free to ping me again if I can be helpful, the accessibility dashboard sounds like a good way to make our progress visible and to identify shortcomings. —Adamw (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer of Reda Kerbouche

Hi @Psychoslave: I have created a subsection like you have asked, if it is not what you want you can edit my answer, and put it under your question.

my answer is that accessibility is very important to have more persons involved in our projects, for my part, it is a primordial thing because the potential users do not stay because certain things are not familiar to them or difficult to understand. I am going to tell you about my experience, I work a lot in indigenous and north-African languages ​​and I myself translated the content into Berbers Tacawit and I initiated the initiative of a wiki project in this language, and I have even organized a user group on Berbers languages to break the language barriers (90% do not speak English).

If we talk about people with a disability. I admire the work that groups of people like WikiBlind user group do. and the people who work on the sign language on Wikipedia. My position inaccessibility is that we have to promote projects on this topic and try to have the right persons that can help us in several sections of this big segment of the movement. the movement has to do a big job, we have to find the priorities and to make a road cart to this priorities --Reda Kerbouche (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Reda Kerbouche, you did it as I expected with a dedicated subsection, and edited the page to align answers that didn't. 😺

Much thanks also of course of the rest of your answer which expose your perspective backed on your own related experience. 🙏 Psychoslave (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from Lorenzo Losa

In my understanding, the current situation of accessibility on Wikimedia projects is mixed. On one hand, it isn't too bad as we do not have many fancy widgets in our pages, and we are mostly text-based with relatively structured pages: i.e., you can understand how an article is structured by looking at headers (hX tags) and paragraphs, and so on. Wikimedia projects, however, are not design for accessibility, far from it.

In general, I think that a big obstacle for accessibility is that in most cases web pages are designed to be rendered in a good way on the device used by the person that is doing the job... and then they don't display correctly on a smaller screen, or a larger screen, or on a mobile device, etc. This problem affects also us, and it is not only due to MediaWiki, but also to the way in which we create the content. Most Wikipedia editors edit using a desktop computer or a laptop, and they write pages that are meant to be viewed on a desktop or a laptop; but that content might be accessed on a smartphone, or with a speech synthesizer, or through some third-party tool.

I think the most important step is taking into consideration, while we create the content, that other people will not always use the same tools that we do; and structuring content in a way that is more semantic and less based on a specific way of rendering it. This would be extremely helpful, even beyond accessibility.

I've been thinking about these topics from time to time, but I'm not sure what we can do to push in this direction: it's something related to the behaviour of the users, and therefore difficult to change (do you have ideas?). It is easier to work on the software: including on the MediaWiki interface, but also on the many semi-standard widgets that are used across the projects (e.g., defining standard colors for infoboxes). The software definitely need more work on accessibility; but my impression is that software alone is not enough, and we need to work on the way in which we produce the content. - Laurentius (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that is an inspiring feedback, and it emphasize rightly that we have a rather complex scenario with different actor profiles with different needs and habits and corresponding outcomes, including readers, on-wiki editors and developers – none of it being necessarily an exclusive category of course.

As you ask it, I think that on the editor side, we might organize something like inviting the most prolific/influential among them to an accessibility formation, so they can understand why it matters, and what they might do in there daily contribution to improve the situation. This way we might expect that documentation pages might evolve to reflect these recommendations, and the rest of the community to align on these improved behaviors. I don't have a specific idea of the form of the formation, one important point that should be first clarified is if it would be more efficient to make such a formation online or on some physical site. The later certainly would be far more expensive and logistically challenging, so knowing if it would come with any benefit of efficiency would matter. Also, as this is just some random suggestion following your question, it might already dig the investigation of how to implement such an event too far. 😅 Psychoslave (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight

As the Chair of the Affiliations Committee, I am privileged to have been an early supporter of the objectives of this User Group since its application to AffCom, which preceded its recognition. I recognize its importance within our movement, maybe more than most, because I experience some accessibility issues myself associated with my age. Accessibility is a very broad term, which doesn't end at reading and editing wiki pages -- albeit these are highly-important issues. It includes who can hear whom (at virtual and at in in-person events) if your hearing is imperfect. How do you get from Point A to Point B (e.g. hotel to the restaurant) during an in-person conference if everyone but you is fit? There are several Movement Strategy 2030 initiatives that address accessibility within the Wikimedia movement and I'll be a keen advocate as they get launched. The first three include the following (of course, there are others):

• Initiative #1, Systematic approach to improve satisfaction and productivity
• #2, Funding for underrepresented communities
• #10, Compatibility with Accessibility Guidelines

If elected to the Board, I will learn from you and I will be an advocate within the team for the improvements in accessibility features and processes you have prioritized. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Moi, président de la fondation wikimania... (Lionel Scheepmans)

Si je suis élu, je ferai tout ce que tu voudras. Tu peux me faire confiance, c'est une promesse électorale !

Bon, plus sérieusement. Il y a deux ans, à Wikimania Stockholm, j'avais la ferme intention de profiter de l'occasion pour faire avancer les choses. Je suis dyslexique et dysorthographique et c'est pour moi un confortable d'écouter un texte plutôt que le lire ou encore de parler à une machine pour qu'elle écrive pour moi sans faute d'orthographe. J'ai donc toujours rêvé d'écouter les projets Wikimédia. En plus avec une bonne synthèse vocale proche de la voix naturelle, c'est tellement agréable de le faire en conduisant, ou dans son lit les yeux fermés. Pour ma thèse de doctorat, j'écoute de plus en plus de livres d'ailleurs et les pages internet aussi grâce au plugin Read Aloud dans Firefox, avec la voix de syntèse mbrola c'est très agréable. Aussi bien que les voix des Gafam.

Mais donc voilà, à l'époque de Stockholm, j'utilisais déjà Kiwix pour écouter Wikipédia sur mon smartphone avec la voix de synthèse google. Seulement Kiwix à ses défauts. Impossible de télécharger des articles à la pièce et aucune mse à jour incrémentale. Conclusion, il faut télécharger tous le dump d'un projet si tu veux mettre un article à jour... J'en ai déjà parlé avec Emmanuel, les choses ont peut-être évolués aujourd'hui, mais je ne pense pas. Comme c'est de fichier compressé au format zim, à mon avis l'incrémentation sera compliquée ou alors peut-être faut-il un système qui désarchive tout fasse la mise à jour et réarchive tout.

Enfin voilà, j'ai donc pris mon bateau de pèlerin et j'ai cherché la personne à qui faire la demande. Ça a pris un peu de temps pour la trouver. Je sais plus son nom. Et je lui ai expliqué que la fonction lecture par la voix de synthèse du smartphone était déjà possible et je pense même que j'ai envoyé un message en notifiant Emmanuel pour qu'il puisse communiquer entre eux. Ben, il s'ait rien passé.

Aaah si j'étais élu ! Moi, président de la fondation Wikimédia, je rendrai tous les projets Wikimédia accessible à la lecture et à l'écriture pour les aveugles et surtout les sourds et les mal entendants !

Mais tu sais quoi Psychoslave ? L'accessibilité, ça ne rapporte pas d'argent, Aucune chance. On préfère engager du personnel dans le service foundraising ou pour fabriquer un nouveau pipeline pour les Gafams Ça c'est du retour sur investissement !

Quelque liens de consolation :

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-aloud/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBROLA

https://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/projects/festival/mbrola.html

Et tu connais sans doute mais on ne sait jamais...

https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Accessibilit%C3%A9_num%C3%A9rique

Une belle fin de journée !

P S Pour info :

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T126889

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispeech Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} _{French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography} 01:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Response of Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin)

Hi @Psychoslave:, thank you for first inviting all the candidates to the Accessibility Group on Telegram and now for bringing this important issue to the notice of all the candidates and asking for their views. This will help us bring greater focus to the issue.

In my view, we would fail in our effort to provide the sum of human knowledge to all the people of the world, if large sections of those very people are unable to access that knowledge due to systemic barriers besides the organic problems faced by those persons. Hence, from the point of view of the values of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity that are ingrained in our intended Movement Charter, it is vital that the issue of accessibility be addressed, and resolved really well.

My view about how to do this is to increase the awareness of the candidates, to develop a strategy for the short term, medium term and long term, and based on this to propose changes and projects that the candidates could champion, approve and progress. If elected, my endeavour would be to do this with the help of the Community so that making Wikimedia projects accessible becomes a permanent and key feature ahead of this point.

Wishing us all the very best for progress in this very important issue. :) AshLin (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from Pascale Camus-Walter (User: Waltercolor)

Thank you so much @Psychoslave: for having addressed this important question which is discussed permanently in the Telegram channel.
I believe accessibility should be considered globally, in the sense that, if accessibility is enforced globally anywhere, the fine tuning of accessibility is then easier to do and will be more confortable than just sticking a layer of accessibility on an existing non convivial site.
That's what I meant when answering to the question "how to attract more contributors". For me people who need an adapted accessibility are typically those new contributors we seek for and there are welcome.
By which means ? Standard accessibility tools should be proposed in all the spaces, but I also suggest to provide people self-appraisal tools to evaluate their needs and be able to adapt the site for new and specific needs.
Waltercolor (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from User:Mike Peel

Hi @Psychoslave: Technically, the opportunity to ask questions has finished, and it's unclear if we're allowed to answer requests like this - but since so many others have already done so, I'll also do so (please ask this earlier next time!). Accessibility is really important, and something that the Wikimedia projects generally does well - but could do better. In particular, alt text is rarely used, and that would be an easy thing to increase, and I'd like to see more consistency with infoboxes and tables (primarily via Wikidata) to make them more standardised and easier to understand (and also more available in other languages). I'm also generally worried that we're poor with mobile - both for reading, but particularly for editing - and that's something I'd really like to see improved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from User:Pavan santhosh.s (Pavan Santhosh Surampudi)

Thanks for the question. I believe accessibility is very important on many levels. Lack of better accessibility hinders diversity and participation. This also would lead to opportunity cost on the other hand. Practically, We lose contributors, knowledge, perspectives, leadership, and what-not if we do not be able to improve our projects in terms of accessibility. To sum it up, I consider improving accessibility as a very important and priority aspect.
Although I do not have first-hand experience with other accessibility issues, I experienced language barriers. I worked to get my way around and now supporting other Wikimedians whom I know in that regard. I believe that accessibility is not getting the level of attention it requires in the movement and also that is reflecting in the way our projects work.
Some actions or ways to start addressing these issues:

• Improving User experience, which I mentioned as my priority in the statement, would directly impact accessibility.
• Research and sensitization training: Research to find out accessibility gaps, how it is affecting diversity and participation, etc., should happen in a more structured manner. Sensitizing the movement leaders and improving understanding about accessibility would result in furthering the cause.
• Systemically involving accessibility leadership and persons who experience accessibility issues in governance.

If I were to get elected to Foundation's board, I would endorse and support efforts to improve accessibility. --Pavan Santhosh Surampudi (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Answer from Farah Mustaklem (Fjmustak)

Knowledge should be accessible to all human beings regardless of their age, race, national origin, religious affiliation, gender identity, sexual orientation, language, or disability. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are no exception. I believe there are processes being put in place to increase inclusion of minorities into the Movement. Language inclusion is much trickier, as written knowledge tends to be heavily skewed towards Western languages (especially English). As for making the Wikimedia movement more accessible to people with disabilities, I believe the WMF has a duty to ensure that all offline events are accessible to all participants. Online, it is not as easy to implement accessibility options to enable people of all levels of ability to read and contribute to knowledge. The WMF should continue to fund projects such as yours that work to increase accessibility. --Fjmustak (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration for the Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2022

Hi all, yesterday I've shared my and our (Wikimedia Foundation) interest on ideas and collaboration for this year's Global Accessibility Awareness Day on 19 May, about a week from now.

If you are interested in bringing forward ideas that are of a reasonable scope, share new initiatives or have general feedback, every input is welcome and every idea valuable.

Have started Accessibility/Global_Accessibility_Awareness_Day_2022 in coordination with Foundation's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion team with some of my and our early ideas.

Thanks for your attention, --Volker E. (WMF) (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)