Last modified: 2010-02-09 03:04:38 UTC
On the right, next to « link to », the button « more » that gives access to a number of options is not accessible to keyborard. Using IE8 for example, I cannot use the tab key to go onto the link « more ». Therefore a blind user would not be able to use LiquidThreads. I recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Graham87 is a admin on en.wiki, you might want to ask him how he uses LiquidThreads. Though he might have a hard time trying it if he has Javascript enabled. If he has disabled Javascript in his browser it will be just fine, but it's a bad idea to rely on that alone. You cannot predict if a blind user will have Javascript enabled or not. I hope you can fix this issue. Apart from that, I really love LiquidThreads. Well done ! I look forward to using it ! Yours, Rodan Bury
Downgraded from blocker to trivial. The software is still in active development, there aren't that many blind users (and they're still able to use the software, even if blind and unable to click a certain feature), and "blocker" is reserved for bugs that block development work, which this doesn't.
My mistake for not knowing what "blocker" actually meant. After reading explanations about severity, I would say the severity is "normal" or "major". This kind of issues are easy to solve in early stage of development, but might get more complicated later on. Plus, Andrew Garrett said that http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/12/liquidthreads-almost-ready-to-deploy/ liquidthreads is almost ready to deploy, and this issues proves that it is absolutely not the case. I understand "reply" is the basic feature of a forum, and "history" and "edit" are important in a wiki. Blind users won't be able to use theses links, so they will only be able to read the content of the page. It will result in a loss of editors. Accessibility is not only for blind users, although it is a common example. It also improves search engine optimization, reuse of the content, and many other things that are part of Wikipedia's goals. It is definitely not trivial. Yours, Rodan Bury
r62161
