jadelennox (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jadelennox) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png)
dw_accessibility2009-08-10 05:13 pm
jadelennox) wrote in dw_accessibility2009-08-10 05:13 pm
suggestion for style documentation
I'm curious as to whether or not I am the only person who ends up having accessibility issues when people modify their styles to change the text of basic features. Specifically:
1. It's bad enough when the text goes back and forth between two different standards (e.g. "user info" versus "profile").
2. It's worse when the text is something the style designer came up with to be original but which still carries clear meaning (e.g. "about me").
3. It's extremely difficult when the text is all flavor and doesn't convey much meaning (e.g. "happy tracks in the sand").
Am I the only person for whom this is an accessibility issue? If this is a general issue and not just me, perhaps we could write some documentation and propose it to the style team as guidelines for what kind of textual changes are worth avoiding if you really care about accessibility in your style. Since end-users can change those texts, not just style designers, we could come up with something brief and nonintimidating for the customization pages.
(By the way, I know I was working on a couple of open accessibility tickets, and I vanished for several months due to personal issues. I'm back as of this week, and have started looking at those tickets again. Sorry for the vanishing.)
1. It's bad enough when the text goes back and forth between two different standards (e.g. "user info" versus "profile").
2. It's worse when the text is something the style designer came up with to be original but which still carries clear meaning (e.g. "about me").
3. It's extremely difficult when the text is all flavor and doesn't convey much meaning (e.g. "happy tracks in the sand").
Am I the only person for whom this is an accessibility issue? If this is a general issue and not just me, perhaps we could write some documentation and propose it to the style team as guidelines for what kind of textual changes are worth avoiding if you really care about accessibility in your style. Since end-users can change those texts, not just style designers, we could come up with something brief and nonintimidating for the customization pages.
(By the way, I know I was working on a couple of open accessibility tickets, and I vanished for several months due to personal issues. I'm back as of this week, and have started looking at those tickets again. Sorry for the vanishing.)
no subject
The properties in question are the entry management links, like so:
"Previous Entry" => "Previous"
"Next Entry" => "Next"
"Add to Memories" => "Memory"
"Track This" => "Track"
"Untrack This" => "Untrack"
"Tell Someone" => "Tell"
"Leave a comment" => "Comment"
In all cases, the first is the one currently used by all layouts; the second is one we're considering as a second set to allow layouts to use, if they need more space in the footer bar.
(And if you think this should be a top-level entry, I can do that as well)
no subject
For the record, it would be OK with me if there were 2 standard sets like that. A lot easier than one standard set plus a bunch of non-standard shortenings, anyway!
r