Template talk:User Articles need fixing

Near duplication of userboxes for essentially maintenance fixes

@Amousey: Okay, thanks for adding explanation for your non-verbiage changes to the original userbox. However, I have to think it'd be better to fix accessibility problems on existing userboxes, rather than creating a new one each time, and then adding your duplicates to the gallery in parallel with the original (which confuses users and maintainers alike).

I've been fixing a ton of userboxes since the start of the pandemic (call it a pet project that I've known needed to be done for some years now). Duplication of wiki pages actually increases what needs to be constantly maintained (e.g. category changes, syntax updates, accessibility fixes). I can spot several things I'd like to fix on this new userbox already, but again it'd be better to fix the original and redirect this duplicate one. – voidxor 03:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a description to save confusion, but one way to do things would be to change the Mr Smart_LION one to just use the new one with parameters - I added parameters so the spinning image can be added by didn't feel comfortable editing an existing userbox. Animation is not an accessibility issue that most are aware of and it won't be flagged up in the way that poor color contrast is. I did start working through color contrast issues but there are thousands. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: I wasn't assuming bad faith at all. I realized after what your aim was. But I'm reverting the description to avoid similar happening again. Template descriptions are easily missed. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amousey: I wouldn't hesitate to make minor formatting edits to existing userboxes. I've been doing a lot of that recently, and nobody has complained. Just explain your reasoning in your edit summary, and link to the pertinent policy or guideline if applicable.

Redirecting the original userbox to this new one is absolutely not an option, in my option, because it detaches the history from the active location of the userbox.

Go ahead and make other minor fixes you desire to the original userbox. Nobody should object to the addition of parameters, if you feel that necessary (although I've spent the last three months pouring over userboxes and user pages and I have yet to see any users using formatting overrides such as |id-fc=). If there's an accessibility guideline against animated images, say so when replacing the image. We can then redirect this new userbox to the original.

Please eliminate the big red stop sign, at least. It's too heavy handed. You've essentially created an editnotice within the template's documentation. Strictly speaking, only administrators can create editnotices because they discourage others from editing, and should only be used as a last resort against persistent vandalism and recurrent edit wars. Asking editors to, "Please don't change the color scheme as this one is accessible," is fine (even though I think that unlikely), but it's not our place to proactively tell editors to "STOP!" – voidxor 18:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the animation is actually something to bring up for userbox standards Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amousey: The only reason you've listed for wanting to do away with animations is "accessibility". Is your concern cross-browser compatibility or reflex seizures, specifically? I can't find a policy that backs what you're saying. Even within article space, MOS:ANIMATION allows animated GIFs, provided they are less than 5 seconds long and don't flash repeatedly. – voidxor 20:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those - different disabilities and medical conditions including impaired vision / partially sighted, vestibular conditions and vertigo, migraine, and several others. WCAG which Wikipedia states it uses explains more than simply epilepsy, and also covers speed of animation and duration. It wouldn't be so much an issue if it was moving much slower or not spinning continually. See MOS:Accessibility on duration, stop/start, and the image does contain moving text on the pieces - while you aren't expected to read it it draws your eyes to it. The 2.1 requirements haven't been added to MOS but pause/stop/hide is no longer optional and must be possible to set before encountering. That particular image breeches the 3 flash limit (flash light /dark change ofx19%). Looks much worse on mobiles which are part of the accessibility side. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That animation does not flash; it's all movement. I don't see any of your other concerns addressed in the accessibility guideline (of which MOS:ANIMATION links to the specific section). I get that it says, "We aim to adhere to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (also known as ISO/IEC 40500:2012) on which the following suggestions are based," at the top, but that's phrased as a loose association. Nonetheless, if you feel the animation violates our guideline, I'd just fix the original userbox and explain in your edit summary (preferably with a link to the guideline). After that, I suggest we redirect this userbox to the original. – voidxor 20:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]