Template:CharterVote2/42/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

As far as possible, special requirements of visually or otherwise impaired users and for responsibly exercised automated access shall be taken into account. Appropriate policies shall be developed when needed by both the Management and Editorial Councils.
The Managing Editor shall intervene against article content that is inappropriate, in particular, if content  Move to Article 31
o violates criminal or civil law or
o is discriminatory or slanderous against persons or groups of persons, on the basis of religion, religious belief, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.
Violations of the Charter shall only be tolerated when forced by external laws. Covered by Article 41

Russell D. Jones 15:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this remaining one. D. Matt Innis 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See also art. 13 and the Special_requirements_.2F_automated_access section at the bottom of the page. --Daniel Mietchen 21:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to delete the remaining one here and to discuss it in the framework of art. 13 (see there). --Daniel Mietchen 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with deletion of article, and moving the idea to Article 13. Russell D. Jones 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with delete and moving to art 13. D. Matt Innis 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Art. 13 has been moved to interim guidance. --Daniel Mietchen 21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can just agree to it with a note that in the renumbering this article should go between current Articles 12 and 14. Russell D. Jones 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that the only place "accessibility" is mentioned above is the preamble, and we are discussing whether this is to be considered binding, I would err on the side of redundancy with this one. Some background. --Daniel Mietchen 11:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all against what's left of this article; I just don't feel like it's necessary. I would agree to the following or to deletion. User:Joe Quick

I found Daniel's argument persuasive, so I'd like to see it retained (moved to Art. 13 as suggested). The article is only advisory at this point, but it does tell the MC/EC to be mindful of this. And as Daniel suggests, it becomes then a powerful statement about the type of community CZ is. Russell D. Jones 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• As far as possible, special requirements of visually or otherwise impaired users and of responsibly exercised automated access shall be taken into account. Appropriate policies shall be developed when needed by both the Management and Editorial Councils.

(undent) While it could move to another article, I do think this should be kept; I deal daily with individuals with disabilities who have trouble with ill-designed web pages. 42 should be the Ultimate Article Howard C. Berkowitz 18:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This won't bind us to making sure everyone can read this will it? In other words, we won't have to make sure that all articles have sound versions for the blind will it? D. Matt Innis 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to have sound versions for the blind, as text-to-speech software is extremely common. The caveat is that accessible web pages have a text-only mode or at least are not dependent on buttons, pulldowns, etc., which text-to-speech cannot handle.

There are extensive software tools to ensure Web pages meet these requirements. We probably aren't in compliance now, but we can become so. This Charter, for example, would be inaccessible to most text-to-speech due to the need to click and expand. I'm not too perturbed if this happens in a working version, but it definitely shouldn't be the authoritative way to display the Charter. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that was part of my point. Will this "require" us to make sure all of our articles "are" available to everyone... not just that we'll try. I'm thinking of the Americans with Disabilities Act that "trying" is no longer good enough... Does this require us to remove anything that is not accessible to everyone? D. Matt Innis 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the ADA doesn't even require retrofitting or to make things accessible when it's infeasible, rather than just expensive, do that. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is specific to the human interfaces of recipients of U.S. government money, and it doesn't require universal accessibility -- there's no way you can make imagery accessible to the visually impaired or sound accessible to those who cannot hear it. Most building codes in the US require ADA compliance for new construction and for substantial renovation, but there's no requirement, for example, to make historic doorways, built in the 18th century, wide enough for a wheelchair even when renovating. Ever been to Colonial Williamsburg? Most men have to duck their heads quite often -- those are low ceilings. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It clearly is not a MUST. The current phrasing states "As far as possible". If we don't have the personnel or expertise, than it's not possible, but if we have the passage in, it is likely we will get support from those concerned if they have any interest in wiki-based access to expert-approved knowledge. --Daniel Mietchen 03:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Daniel. It isn't a MUST; perhaps a SHOULD. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary: This is where we stand:
Agree: Berkowitz, Mietchen, Jones, Quick, Innis
There also seems to be a majority of those voting who want this article moved.