1

There’s been a lot of talk about the Talk Page Policy lately, and I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon here. However, certain aspects of Talk page designs could cause trouble for disabled editors, and I’m wondering if these should be addressed in the policy. This is to open a community discussion about whether a change is wanted or needed; it’s not a formal policy proposal.

The Talk Page Policy currently stipulates that text must be black on a white background, and that the messages can’t be obscured. It’s a good start, but it’s not up-to-date with current web accessibility guidelines or the responsive redesign (the latter of which we discussed last year). Some things (like responsive-unfriendly Talk page designs) can be a pain to read, and for editors with dyslexia or visual disabilities, things like font style also affect whether they can read the page.

We regularly get new users, many of whom don’t use the responsive site or know much about disability. Officially addressing responsive and readability is easier than explaining general guidelines to multiple users. There are some other benefits to formalizing accessibility in a policy, too: because a formal policy is a clear guide on what the rules are (and often explain why they exist), it can provide a wider understanding of what’s responsive- and disability-friendly, and make summarizing the policy easier for less experienced users or those who struggle with communication.

Below are a couple of things that could be addressed in the policy to improve basic accessibility.

Mobile/Responsive-Friendly Designs:Excessive design on Talk pages, namely thick borders and floating elements, can crush or block text and block the message box on the responsive site. Crushed text can be hard to read (particularly for disabled editors), and formerly-compatible banners are now policy violations on responsive. Updating for responsive and establishing readability guidelines can make Talk pages easier to navigate.
Possible amendments to the policy:
– Adding a hard limit on total border thickness/width
– Using a set “template” for floating banners that’s compatible with responsive; users are restricted to a set height, width, and placement on the screen, but can otherwise customize as desired
– Restricting the use of floating elements to necessities: for example, away messages

Restricting Font Types:Some editors use custom fonts, which is not addressed in the current policy. Certain fonts (particularly “fancy” ones like Papyrus or cursive/script fonts) can be difficult to read, and even unreadable to those with visual disabilities or dyslexia. Limiting users to serif or monospace fonts can keep Talk pages accessible for these editors, and make the page look cleaner.
Possible amendment to the policy: Limit Talk pages to serif and monospaced fonts, and disallow use of overly designed or “fancy” fonts. (Fonts in images or GIFs do not need to be included in this, but it can be recommended that these use serif or monospace as well.)

Limiting Potential Seizure Triggers:GIFs and Talk page designs are not currently affected by the Talk Page Policy. Someone with photosensitive epilepsy can have a seizure when exposed to flashing elements or even sharply contrasting colors. While every case of epilepsy is different, restricting common seizure triggers can make Talk pages safer for editors who have photosensitive seizure triggers.
Possible amendments to the policy:
– Allow slow-moving gifs, but prohibit rapid-moving or overly colorful GIFs
– Ban GIFs on Talk pages entirely
– Limit or ban specific variations of Talk designs that pose a seizure risk, like striped designs

While color can also pose an accessibility issue, I don’t see a way to address color in the Talk Page Policy, because there’s too much variation. (A blanket-ban on bright colors ignores that they can be used in small amounts, not everyone agrees on what colors clash, and what might be painful or seizure-inducing to one person could be fine to another.) Therefore, I’m focusing on font, responsive, and seizure triggers.

Would changing the Talk Page Policy for these things benefit editors, or is there another solution? Are there suggestions for how these issues can be addressed (whether as a policy or something else), or things that affect accessibility and should be in the list? I’d like to hear what others think, and welcome any input or discussion.:slight_smile:

15 Likes
2

Hello yes I am back,

Personally, as a person who used to use a talk page border, it got hard as heck to read them. The borders have a tendency to mess with the talkpage, especially if not scripted right. This can cause not only problems with reading but also glitches. I personally think that altering the rules, such as width and whatnot would be a good idea. However, the best thing I think is to ban them outright, unless you have permission from an admin or staff member.

That, in my opinion, will lead to plenty of improvements in the talk page system.

Secondly, banning gifs on talk pages is a bit idiotic, unless they can trigger people (as in colorful or flashing lights, and not ones that make them upset).

Thirdly, and this is more suggestion, is to make a new tool for talk page alteration approval (as in edits like borders and whatnot). This would allow for a more streamlined way to make borders, or major alterations to the talk page.

7 Likes
3

I’m in favour of modifying the policy, particularly with regards to accessibility - I don’t have dyslexia or any visual disabilities and there are still some talk pages which I find difficult to read.

I’m aware that borders/boxes/etc. can cause readability issues and problems in NAB and do therefore, in theory, support a move to a policy which is more clear about these design elements. I do wonder though how likely it is, if such a policy change were to be made, whether it would end up being used more as backing for enforcement of the policy than stopping issues from occurring in the first place - many (though by no means all) users, in my experience, who are experimenting with designing their talk page tend to newer users who are unlikely to be familiar with policy. As a result, I don’t know how well this could handle the point of “Officially addressing responsive and readability is easier than explaining general guidelines to multiple users.” - if users aren’t familiar with the policy, and may well not be willing to read a heavy policy, I imagine explanation of the guidelines will remain necessary.

Regarding:

it seems to me that this would probably put an undue burden on staff/admins and be a distraction from more pressing issues. On a more ideological level, I personally favour the use of the least restrictive measures appropriate, and this feels like it would overly restrict the freedom of users to express themselves in one of the few places they are entitled to some degree of personal expressiveness to force them to go through a process of having alterations to their talk page pre-approved.

I fully support an inclusion of potentially PSE-inducing GIFs in the policy (though the above issue about proactive v. reactive applies) - it feels, to me, that whilst it would be ideal to demarcate potentially problematic GIFs/designs and other GIFs/designs, this might be a difficult line to draw in something as black and white as a formal policy.

7 Likes
4

@MattheusG I appreciate your input, though I do want to mention we wouldn’t have the engineering resources for a Talk page tool. Our engineering team is still really small and they would need to not only build the tool, but update it every time there’s a change to the site that affects tool functionality (which can happen with even small changes that don’t seem like they’d touch that tool). All changes to Talk pages already go through RCP anyway, so I think we probably have that base covered:slight_smile:

@GB742 With this discussion, I was thinking more of enforcement, rather than prevention. Short of forcing people to read policies as soon as they sign up (which can drive people off), we can’t guarantee people will know these things. But if we have an official policy about it, the ones who do know can give a heads-up to editors who are violating those guidelines, or ask an admin to handle it rather than feeling like they have to avoid the Talk page and suffer in silence. And from an admin or coaching perspective, it’s easier to say “this is a wikiHow guideline/policy, so everyone has to adhere to it” - that makes it obvious it’s an actual rule, and not just personal preference on Talk designs. (I’ve had some kids get mouthy at me for asking them to take down their banners, and a message to the effect of “it’s a sitewide rule, not me being a jerk” is usually enough to get them to back down.)

7 Likes
5

If you want to ban images that could cause PSE-inducing GIFs, then we would need to modify the Image Deletion Policy , not the Talk Page Policy . Are we talking about amending both of these policies?

4 Likes
6

I would also be in favor of changing the talk page policy-All of the changes proposed in the beginning seem like great ideas. As for any violations of the policy, I feel like it could just be treated similar to username/user image, where we send them a message that they’ll need to edit something on their talk page.

5 Likes
7

I don’t believe the initial proposal specifically covers this, but I for one would be in favour of adding such GIFs to the objectionable content section of the IDP - as far as I can tell, there’s not really going to be any legitimate usage of rapidly flashing GIFs - the only time I’ve seen such a GIF on a talk page it was added in a clearly malicious fashion by another user.

2 Likes
8

My personal thoughts were about GIFs on Talk pages specifically; I can’t speak for anyone else. But if we were to amend the Image Deletion Policy (which would probably be an entirely separate discussion), we’d need to get staff involved in the discussion as well, because Wikivisual guidelines would also need to be updated so they don’t create anything potentially dangerous.

3 Likes
9

Overall, I believe these suggestions would be good to implement.

I would say that I agree with these suggestions; I’ve oftentimes encountered overly thick borders (and unknowingly had one myself at one point until someone informed me) that caused issues especially on the responsive site. Setting a limit on border thickness and width could be a great way to prevent this, though we’d need to decide on a limit. And I do agree that floating messages just to say something along the lines of “hi, welcome to my talk page” are unneeded, and only ones for important messages would truly need to be used (though even important messages could be posted in a non-floating box at the top of the page - but that would likely mean that less users will see the message).

I don’t have much to comment about this section other than a firm agreement. Some fonts, such as showy cursive fonts, can be extremely difficult to read.

As for these, I’d vote for allowing slow-moving GIFS so users can still have the ability to showcase a GIF if they desire - I’m for having as much design freedom as possible. As long as the GIF doesn’t cause issues like potential seizure triggers, I think it should be fine. That being said, I’m against banning GIFs entirely for the aforementioned reason, but I’d be happy to hear a second opinion on that. Also, I second the idea to limit seizure risk designs such as stripes (or perhaps ban them altogether - GIFs could have some use on a talk page in some cases, but stripes, in my opinion, are just for personal designing purposes and aren’t really needed - but I would vote limit over ban for the purpose of more designing freedom as long as the stripes are in moderation and do not cause issues).

I believe that’s all I have to say:slight_smile:

5 Likes
10

Secondly, banning gifs on talk pages is a bit idiotic, unless they can trigger people (as in colorful or flashing lights, and not ones that make them upset).

@MattheusG Please remember to keep in mind the policy of being kind. Calling someone’s idea idiotic because you don’t personally agree can be seen as rather impolite.

4 Likes
11

As for the policy suggestion by Alex. I have to say that I am mostly in agreement with what is suggested. As a non disabled editor, ‘funky’ talk pages can be extremely hard to read. To the point of giving me a headache or just giving up trying to read it. They also can get in the way of some patrolling, admin, and even booster tasks. I can imagine that it’s far worse for a disabled editor on top of what issues someone like me might have.

Adding a hard limit on border thickness/width. Using a set template for floating banners.

Having seen a lot of banners that are far too invasive or large and get in the way of just about everything. I would agree. I think having a set template for everyone to use that we know isn’t going to be a problem and limits on how thick it can be would be very helpful.

Restricting the use of floating elements for necessities

My question is. How necessary are floating messages anyway? And on the flip side of that same question how necessary is restricting it to only specific tasks? Are there any other uses beyond away messages that we might be stifling in restricting it?

Font types

Yes. Some of these fancy font types can legit be a headache to read.

Allow slow moving gifs but prohibit rapid moving or overly colorful GIFs.

I generally agree with this. My only question is what would constitute as slow moving or fast moving? Like is there a particular cut off? If not a blanket ban of fast moving gifs I would def support requiring a warning at the top at least, maybe?

8 Likes
12

I’ve always had a stance against excessive talk page design, so yes I definitely support further discussion on policy change. I wear glasses and although my vision impairment isn’t too too bad, sometimes I still gotta zoom in to read text especially when it’s in a fancy font. (And c’mon, a casual font like Papyrus doesn’t look good on a professional website like wikiHow). Like it says on the policy page, talk pages are vital tools for communication and it’s important that design elements don’t detract from functionality.

A hard limit on border size/thickness/etc also gets my thumbs up. It’s been confirmed that thick borders as well as floating banners negatively affect functionality and navigation. Borders squish text and banners prevent NAB buttons from being clicked.

With regards to gifs, this may seem radical to others but I personally support disallowing them on talk pages entirely regardless of animation speed. Not only for the sake of PSE and accessibility, but also for aesthetics and professionalism. I can’t think of a reason for a talk page to have a gif in the first place. Individuality, creative expression, personality? That’s really what your user page is for.

With regards to enforcement - best practice for policy violations has always been feedback and coaching. But with that said, if there is still non-compliance on the part of the talk page owner after warnings, perhaps we could give the green light for any editor to remove these distracting elements without fear of the “you need permission from the owner to edit their talk page”.

I wrote this during my commute to work so I haven’t had much opportunity to read the other posts yet. These are my initial thoughts so far and I’m open to swaying my opinions. I totally understand the desire for self-expression. The community has a lot of youngsters. I also wanted to assert my own identity and individuality when I was younger. But wikiHow also has a lot of older folks and other people who have issues with vision. So it is important to balance design and expression with accessibility. Bottom line, and I said this in that other thread I made too: always try your best to take others into consideration when designing your talk page.

8 Likes
13

I can see them being useful for away messages (like I mentioned), or username changes. There are also edge cases - recently the system wasn’t letting anyone send me emails, and if that hadn’t been fixed as quickly as it had, I might’ve put up a note letting people know. These kinds of things can be easier to see than notes at the top of a Talk page, and can usually fit into small spaces. Floating banners can have a time and a place, so I personally am not a proponent of completely banning them (though others may feel differently, of course!) - just restricting their use and/or size.

Epilepsy.com says PSE is most likely to be triggered by “flashing lights […] between the frequency of 5 to 30 flashes per second”, and epilepsysociety.org.uk cites it as “between 3-30 [flashes per second]”, with some people “sensitive [to] frequencies up to 60 [flashes per second]”. I don’t know a lot about PSE (or epilepsy in general, to be honest), so I don’t know how we’d measure that, but I can research that and it’s possible someone else might know.

6 Likes
14

Agreed. I personally hate cursive fonts as a non-dyslexic person, and I can imagine how hard it would be for a dyslexic person to read them.

3 Likes
15

I would say just send a coaching message telling them about the violation, and warning them that if it is not fixed, then their talk page design may be changed or removed. If they continue to edit, and they ignore the message for 15 minutes, then anybody can remove or modify the design. I think that would work. It would give the user the opportunity to fix it, but if they don’t, then the design could be modified. (If the user is inactive, then I would say to wait 5-7 days to change their design).

Also, if enforcing this policy becomes a big issue, I know that we can use the Abuse Filter to block some of the designs that would be prohibited. But this would be extreme overkill, so it should only be considered if basically every new user violates the policy and/or enforcement becomes really difficult and stressful. But it can be done, so that would always an option that we have.

For a hard limit on the talk page borders, I would make it 1.5em (px is not allowed because it is not responsive). You can see an example of what a border would look like at 1.5em here . I think that it is a good size for a border that does not go overboard.

For GIFs, I would just ban seizure inducing GIFs through a modification to the Image Deletion Policy rather than ban them through the Talk Page Policy.

6 Likes
16

I support this. Fancy fonts like Papyrus are hard for me to read, though I don’t have dyslexia or another disability like that.

3 Likes
17

Support this.

4 Likes
18

I think all of this could benefit wikiHow. My concern is that getting to these policies can be difficult to find affecting in users not knowing the policies. I think the policies more accessible for users so they can see them. I think this could potentially benefit not just anons/newbies, but also older users.

2 Likes
19

I don’t have dyslexia, however, I end up straining my eyes and causing head - and eye - aches.

I agree with adding this too. I don’t have any medical condition that causes seizures, but flashy things make me really nauseous and lightheaded.

Yes. I think it needs to be updated.

Which is why I think policies need to be more available for users.

3 Likes
20

I think a separate “accessibility” policy is needed. Here is what it could contain:

  1. wikiHow has its servers in the United States, and thus must comply with US accessibility laws, including the American Disabilities Act.
  2. All pages on wikiHow, be it article, project, user, or talk, must comply with W3C web accessibility guidelines, meaning that they must account for potential disabilities like color blindness and photosensitive epilepsy. (For example, red text on green background can be illegible for those with color blindness, and scrolling over red and blue striped patterns could cause problems for those with photosensitive epilepsy).
  3. Any page that does not comply with accessibility guidelines may be edited so they meet them.
  4. Pages or images posted that clearly violate web accessibility guidelines by including photosensitive content (like GIFs that rapidly flash between red and blue) may be speedy deleted.

I would also propose a new template for this as well {{accessibility}}:

Thanks for contributing to wikiHow. Unfortunately, I or an admin had to edit or remove one of your recent posts because they violate web accessibility guidelines. As wikiHow is hosted in the United States, it must comply with the ADA. Please take your time to review our accessibility policy to understand what kind of customization is allowed and what isn’t. Thanks for understanding, and please message me if you have any questions.

5 Likes