Wikidata talk:Accessibility

this text is wrong

No person who has no JavaScript can edit any interwikis – there’s just no form at all to fill out –, so it’s not possible to contribute to the main part of Wikidata at the moment. Is this really "a fairly good level of accessibility", if persons can’t contribute just because of old computers or other kind of stuff like this? You don’t even need to be blind for not to be able to contribute. I think there are many more people with not sufficient technology than blind people. I think, people from other countries than the USA or Europe will have many problems with this. There should at least be a page, where persons can request changes of interwikis instead, but I think there isn’t one at all.

It’s also difficult to do translations with this interface, because you need to look for the right message with Special:PrefixIndex e.g. in these many messages to find the right one which you want to change, because the translation interface doesn’t do anything without scripts. The text isn’t right, that there’s "a fairly good level of accessibility", so it should be changed. On other wikis (like the Wikipedias), it’s a lot easier to contribute than here, that’s for sure. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 18:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You might well be correct. I am the author of the 2012 statement that Wikidata appears to be fairly accessible. I am not a native english speaker. My statement lacked precision.

I wanted to say that the users (editors) from Wikidata could apparently not have an impact on Wikidata accessibility (neither positive nor negative). This has quite a lot of good sides, because accessibility is left in the hands of coding professionals. Wikidata:Accessibility was created with the purpose to teach editors about accessibility. The fact that the community has little impact on accessibility means that Wikidata:Accessibility is not very useful.

Also, from the way Wikidata is structured, I suppose it is fairly accessible. There is no image or complex content. It's all about data. And it's very well structured from that point of view. So even if there was accessibility issues (there might well be, I haven't checked), I would be easy to fix these issues. Altough editing might well be more problematic, because it's very dynamic in Wikidata, and such features are more complicated to render accessible.

Currently, there are no accessibility experts hired as part of the Wikimedia team of developers. Which means that Wikidata migh well be lacking in terms of accessibility, and there would be no one knowledgeable enough in the team of developers to identify and fix theses issues.

I hope this answers some of your questions. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

" The fact that the community has little impact on accessibility" - this is not a fact. Editors can for instance, use unclear abbreviations in descriptions; or inaccessible markup on talk pages, or user pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy Mabbett, nice to see you. :-)

"Editors can for instance, use unclear abbreviations in descriptions": that's a good point, we have to take this possibility into account. Do you have an example in mind?

Markup on talk page or user page pose the same problems as on Wikipedia. We have very few guidelines about users pages and discussion pages.

I meant that users have very little impact on the accessibility of Wikidata content pages (main namespace). Of course, there is still help pages, Wikidata project pages, templates, and every other namespace. Dodoïste (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)