Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility

1. 
2. Collaborations
3. WikiProjects
4. Accessibility

Screen reader question

I have done quite a bit of work at Bob Vylan. The duo use stage names Bobby and Bobbie, which I realized can cause problems with screen readers. I am not sure how this can be dealt with and seeking advice. Thanks. Please @ if you reply. ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist: Yeah an odd one ... but I'd say just leave it, as screen reader users can always review text by character if necessary. Graham87 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Graham87 Is there a template that forces character reading that we could use? I am not that familiar with that space. I will have to look more into making pages more screen reader friendly. We considered using their real names to distinguish, but that isnt standard for stage names, or use their band role, but that would be awkward. ←Metallurgist (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist: Nope, there isn't. We can't even detect whether someone is using a screen reader. Again, I'd say don't worry about us ... there's no way to make it better for screen reader users without degrading the experience for other editors. There's also the fact that not all screen reader users use speech; some use Braille instead of or in addition to their speech synthesiser, and space is at a premium in Braille. Graham87 (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh thats very interesting thank you for the information. Maybe I can insert something in the lede or names section that at least would clear it up. Its still a bit odd, even when you can see the names. My grandmother was actually a braille typist. Ive wanted to learn it. ←Metallurgist (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist, old but I added {{Sro}} to where the names are to help clear it up for screen readers. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert ah, thanks for the suggestion. I think there are a few more in the page if you think those merit it. This has to be the most unusual case for a screen reader. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Metallurgist: The only issue I see on the article is the disambiguation between Bobby, Bobbie, and whichever Bob is. I can see that a singular Bob is mentioned but there is no past disambiguating factor to who is the “Bob”. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 08:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Bob singular is the duo together. Its a pun off Bob Dylan and "villain". They use stage names Bobby and Bobbie to further conflate themselves, but the joke is only apparent in written text. I honestly wouldnt even know how to explain it to someone without showing the names. As much as I dont like their views or antics, the whole shtick is hilarious. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert sorry forgot to tag ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of works by Vincent van Gogh § Images in tables

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of works by Vincent van Gogh § Images in tables, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. I've raised some concerns about the accessibility of the article's tables, especially the use of images. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 21:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Alt text templates

I noticed that we have two templates for articles missing alt text: Template:Alt text missing and Template:No alt text. Is there a preference regarding which one to use? Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 16:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The former is a category-only template and probably merits deletion as being fairly useless for indicating the issue. Izno (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Alt text templates at TfD

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 9 § Template:Alternative text missing, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 10:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

SANDWICH Issue

The WKEY (AM) article has been identified as having SANDWICH issues. Previously the two images in the article were placed in the two sections within the article and for 10 years has never raised an issue. I should note, this is a Good Article, so it's been through scrutinized over and no accessibility issues were raised during it's GAN.

An editor (BlueboyLINY) who works with your project, moved them below the infobox. Since this is a Good Article, this is not preferable. Typically, images are preferred in line of the sections that describe the image. Since this is a small article, it only has two sections where text is and those are in-line with the infobox.

Working to find a solution, he suggested the images be placed in a gallery. Keeping in line with the Good Article standards, I moved them to a gallery in the previous position. While, admittedly, not perfect, the images were smaller than previous. The editor's idea was to center them under a line of text. This isn't doable and frankly looks silly. I reverted to the previous temporarily while I bring it to you all for your advice and input. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I have cross-posted this discussion to the GAN talk page and the WP:WPRS talk page for their input as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that this is a problem with the image placement in this article, I am not convinced it is a GA problem. The GA criteria only cover a subset of the MOS and content guidelines and I don't see MOS:IMG among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this has much to do with it being a GA or not. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@David Eppstein and Lee Vilenski: Thanks for your input. We can scratch off GA as an issue and just work on a visually better solution. Thanks again! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think most of the issue is that the infobox is MASSIVE. Why does it have so much information in it? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: That's actually pretty standard for a WP:WPRS infobox. There are some, like WINS-FM, that are considerably longer. Though, some of that information can go away, since the station is no longer on the air. Let me see what I can do to trim it. It won't be much, though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd be able to trim much from the infobox, but I tried. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe that's an issue then. Infoboxes really aren't supposed to take up a whole page of screen size or have to scroll to see it all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Everything in that infobox looks appropriate for infoboxes. The only thing I'd consider removing is the list of links, and that's a general grief not just to this page, not just to the infobox template, but all infoboxes. Izno (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: That would be a much larger conversation, to be honest. There are approximately 20,000 articles within WP:WPRS and all have infoboxes and all are jam packed. Some are admittedly smaller, but all have the basic information. That's not something I, personally, can do much about, unfortunately.

@Izno: You mean the website and webstream links? I could remove those. See, the station itself is off the air, but the station's programming got moved to an HD2 stream of an FM station. So, technically, the links are still valid and working (the livestream is still working), it's just now on a different frequency. I know, confusing. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm of the general opinion that it's self defeating to put any URL in the infobox as a main entry (see also WP:EL regarding links in the content instead of in specified regions). This is non-specific to this case but those are things that could be removed at the template's level here that would help trivially across all radio station articles. Izno (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I will start with this one, ping @Sammi Brie:, who kinda "runs" WPRS, for the rest of the articles (again, I only have very limited control). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is more a question of the size of {{Infobox radio station}}, which has a lot of technical information that lives there and not in many other places, a la {{chembox}} or similar.

Some comments on the instant case:

• I'd have removed the website and webcast links in this instance, even though they continue to exist as part of the fact that an HD2 is now feeding the translator. I don't think anything else begs removal.
• I think the linking discussion is honestly at a higher level than this one, probably even at RfC.

There really are no good solutions on the sandwich front. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 07:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Thanks for your work on the page. I didn't think there were any good options on the sandwich front, unfortunately. Someone is gonna be unhappy no matter what we decide. Should we just return it to how it was and call it a day? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Blind People

• phabricator:T6845
• mw:Product_Safety_and_Integrity/Anti-abuse_signals/hCaptcha
• mw:Talk:Product_Safety_and_Integrity/Anti-abuse_signals/hCaptcha#Blind_users
• c:File:Let's_Raise_the_Roof_-_A_Social_Model_of_Disability_-_a_Welsh_Government_video_-_2021.webm

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Tower of London article

Good evening, I tried (unsuccessfully) to add some breaks to long blocks of text on the Tower of London article today. I was swiftly reverted. Then I went over the edit history of the page and saw that attempts to make the page more user friendly are typically reverted pretty quickly. I won't attempt to edit the page again, but I did leave a message on the talk page outlining my concerns. If someone in this group has time to check it over in light of MOS:ACCESS and WCAG, I leave it in your more capable hands. FallingRocksAhead (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@FallingRocksAhead: Answered there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Alt text guidance?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Is 2019 RfC still valid? Alt text is not required in FA articles? about how WP:FAC should deal with alt text. The gist is "We generally think it's a good idea but don't know how to write good ones so we've shied away from requiring it". If anybody could provide some useful input, please join the discussion. RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AINB § Wendy at AgenticCommons

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AINB § Wendy at AgenticCommons. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Sammi Brie § User:BlueboyLINY

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Sammi Brie § User:BlueboyLINY. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Should portal icons obey MOS:BLANKALT ?

From a discussion started at Template talk:Portal:

A large number of PD portal icons use link=|alt=flag or similar, e.g.:

• The Gambia portal

I see that MOS:BLANKALT directs us to use link=|alt= for purely decorative images. Are portal icons purely decorative? Should we blank the alt field from PD portal icons? Guidance from users who have experience with screen readers is very welcome.

Coeur has a proposal for adding alt=icon to portal icons which currently have empty alt. I'll let them explain the reasoning behind their proposal. — hike395 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Waddie96 who had asked about this a few months ago. — hike395 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Trialpears, Graham87, TheDJ, Bpmcneilly who participated in a discussion related to this last September. — hike395 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, these are purely decorative. Izno (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

probably? We are not really trying to communicate the icon/flag design to people. We are providing a visual recognizable “mental quicklink” for people to not have to read the link text. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If the icon is CC0 or public domain (or licensed with certain uncommon licenses like WTFPL), I'd say they're purely decorative and link=|alt= would be appropriate. Note, however, that most common licenses, such as GFDL, CC BY, and CC BY-SA, require that we provide attribution and a notice that the image is under the particular licenses, which we usually satisfy by linking the image to the file description page where this information is present. In these cases, link= should not be used, as described in more detail at MOS:BLANKALT and MOS:EMPTYALT, and an alt= such as alt=flag or alt=icon would be appropriate.

As for Coeur's claim that Slack or Google tend to pick the first image of the page with alt="", I'd question that. More likey, as I understand it, is that they'd pick up the image specified by the OpenGraph metadata provided by mw:Extension:PageImages. Anomie⚔ 20:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

as a screen reader user I'd slightly prefer them to obey the Manual of Style (i.e. have blank alt text when possible) but it's not that big a deal for me either way. Graham87 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

See here, the "2000s Portal" image was the first image of the page with an empty `alt=`, and so it got picked by Slack. To avoid that, we'd want an `alt=icon` for all the ignorable images. Coeur (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No we should never be tailoring wikitext to implementations of specific apps. It's too fragile. If slack doesn't listen to the opengraph metadata, that's their problem and we should make a bug report with Slack. We should always follow the best HTML and accessibility conventions. They are the most durable way forward. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of Halloween (franchise), it seems the page has no page image at all, which might help explain why Slack fell back to some other image. OTOH, when I check the page I find that the "2000s Portal" image is actually the last, not the first, of six with no alt. Or Slack may be doing something else entirely to choose the image in the absence of OpenGraph metadata, as "pick an image with no alt" seems an odd criterion for it to use in the first place. Anomie⚔ 14:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)