ivorygates: (Default)
[personal profile] ivorygates
Rho asked me to work with the Accessibility Team to prepare with a guidelines document for the FAQs writers and the Translation Team that would help us frame all site language in ways that would render the site optimally-accessible for all users, no matter how they are accessing the site. This is the first-pass document, primarily culled from the thread in [site community profile] dw_docs that originally framed that discussion, and from the work of [personal profile] zvi, [personal profile] rb, [personal profile] jadelennox and others who posted there and who I probably forgot to name.
LANGUAGE GUIDELINES FOR FAQ WRITERS AND SITE TRANSLATION TEAM )
rainbow: drawing of a pink furred cat person with purple eyes and heart shaped glasses. their name is catastrfy. (Default)
[personal profile] rainbow
When they're in a sentence, do things like Reading Page and Circle get capitalised or not?
rainbow: ani gif of Ankh-Morpork times with "The TRUTH shall me ye fret/flee/fred/free" (all the news that's fit to print)
[personal profile] rainbow
As I'm look through things, different strings have one or the other. Should they all be the same, and if so, which?

Carys
ivorygates: (Default)
[personal profile] ivorygates
I'm looking for input on terminology here, because I'm running across more and more translation strings with the word "user" in them, and it's my understanding that Dreamwidth wants to avoid using that term. Now, frequently "user" can be replaced with "you", but just as frequently it can't, as in "Similar Users" or "No users are similar to [[user]]." (I could go on. And on.)

ETA: Judges' Ruling: "users" will be replaced with "accounts" throughout translation strings where "user" or "users" cannot reasonably and logically be replaced with "you".

What are we going to do in these situations? "Individual" is too cold-corporate; "People" is misleading (because sometimes the "USER" referenced in the translation string might also be a community or communities); "Persons" has the same problem as "People" (and is grammatically-hideous into the bargain).

I'm just about ready to replace "user" with "dude or dudes"....

Your thoughts?
zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)
[personal profile] zvi
I pointed out a sort of overarching issue with the FAQ documentation as currently written to rho, and, in traditional DW fashion, she asked me to take the first pass at solving it.

The problem is that some of the documentation is written with visual, spatial, or movement-specific language. To the extent possible, FAQs/sitedoc should not be written with the assumption that the eventual reader is going to be seeing the same images and screen ratios, nor that they'll be interacting with their computer with the same input devices as the writer's. On the one hand, you have people with disabilities using the site; on the other hand, you have people with an array of mobile devices using the site; and on the third hand, you have a few people out there still cruising in lynx, because they're Richard Stallman. (Not to mention that we'll support different siteschemes, and people will do all manner of funky things with their journal styles.)

I'm going to do a first sweep through the FAQ docs as currently written, but I strongly suggest you guys hook up with the Accessibility team for more expert advice. (For instance, I am unsure about whether or not dropdown menu is a term that is meaningful on a screenreader.) My inexpert advice is that, wherever possible, instead of describing a visual element, you include the image and its alt-text as it will appear on the site (maybe with a note that it's the site default?), and if you can skip the visual element and just link to the thingy in question, that's even better.

By visuospatiai issue, I mean that the FAQ says "perform this motion" for interacting with the site, or "item found to the left of second item" or "choose the [textual description of image] to accomplish task" Any language which requires the user to be seeing the same site visually or using the mouse or keyboard like the writer.

Additionally, all link text should be meaningful ("Choose your sitescheme" instead of "click here to"), and, a title attribute should be set when the link text doesn't match the page title of the page the link refers to.

FYI Each tab of my account settings has a URL, so you can link directly to that tab.

FAQ's w/ visuospatial language )

P.S. Psst. [personal profile] forthwritten. May want to include site-specific URL forms in What Dreamwidth specific markup can I use?. All the lj were replaced with site.
denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
[staff profile] denise
We have a bug open right now to change the "14+" adult content setting to "13+" (for many reasons), so please be aware, while you're writing site copy/docs/etc, that we should be referring to it as 13+ and not 14+.

(Long story. Short version is: doing it to fall more in line with 'PG-13' and the COPPA regulations.)
snakeling: Statue of the Minoan Snake Goddess (Default)
[personal profile] snakeling

Thanks to [staff profile] denise, I was able to get a broader sample for the naming of the menu in the profile.

The poll itself was next to useless, but the comments were very illuminating. Several trends emerged:

  • having "profile" in the name is misleading, as the only thing the menu has to do with the profile is the fact that it's located there
  • "action" describes the menu better than "navigation", but it's still not quite right

Several people proposed "user interactions menu" or "networking menu". I'm reluctant to use "netwoking menu", as "Network" has a specific meaning in DW (it's the friendsfriends function). I'm also reluctant to use "user" in the menu name, as a similar menu appears on comms and feeds.

After reviewing all these arguments, I'm making an executive decision because someone has to. The menu shall henceforth be known as the Interactions Menu. If you've got an objection, now is the time to argue it :)

(Also, can someone tell me whether "interactions" should be in the plural or singular? I like it in the plural, but I'm not a native speaker.)

Thanks to all who participated and commented!

[personal profile] rho
Since we're hoping to have multiple different site schemes at some point, possibly sooner rather than later (I was prompted to think of this by [staff profile] denise mentioning on IRC she was working on one), we need to make sure that all our documentation is site scheme agnostic. This means, for example that we can't say "go to the 'read' option on the top navigation bar and select 'syndicated feeds' from the dropdown menu" since in other schemes there won't be a top navigation bar in other schemes.

However, all the schemes are going to be using the same menu structure. I think that the long term plan is to split off the menu structure from the schemes, so the schemes just have to point to the menu structure and updating that will update all the schemes. Don't quote me on that though. From our perspective this means that we can say "select 'syndicated feeds' under the 'read' option of the site menu".

Also, if referencing pages like this, always be sure to give a direct link to the page as well. The idea being along the lines of "here's a link to the page for you now, and here's how you can find it next time you need it".
Page generated Jun. 22nd, 2017 08:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios