Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Readability guidelines: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
not to be conflated with accessibility |
add how-to template |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Navigation menu | Layout}}
{{Wikipedia how-to|pages=at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility]].}}
== Size of text ==
Small text affects readability a lot
Reducing text size causes usability issues:
# The first usability
# The biggest usability issue is for elders (and possibly anyone older than 40), normal users with
For these reasons, it is better to not reduce the size of the body text.
Note that people with
=== Examples ===
{{see also|user:Edokter/fonttest}}
==== Adjusting pixels ====
{{strong|Note}}: when viewing those examples, result may vary if you have customized your font size in your browser or style sheet, if you are using the zoom ("Ctrl +/-") – note that "Ctrl 0" resets zoom to default – or depending on your screen and its resolution.▼
▲{{strong|Note}}: when viewing
* <span style="font-size: 13px;">Font size sample: 13 pixels. This is the default text size on Wikipedia.</span>
Line 20 ⟶ 25:
* <span style="font-size: 19px;">Font size sample: 19 pixels. This is the recommended text size for elders.</span>
====
* <span style="font-size: 75%;">Font size sample: 75%. The result is similar to <nowiki><small></nowiki>, and really too small to be read comfortably. Users without particular vision impairments might have a lot of trouble to read it.</span>
Line 30 ⟶ 35:
* <span style="font-size: 150%;">Font size sample: 150%. Similar to 14 points.</span>
===
* [[Template:Resize]]▼
For example, to set the font size of references back to 100% (instead of 90%), add the following code to [[Special:Mypage/skin.css|your CSS page]].
<syntaxhighlight lang="css">
Line 42 ⟶ 45:
</syntaxhighlight>
====
▲Small text affects readability a lot, and has been thoroughly studied by usability experts: [http://www.laurenscharff.com/research/SWExp.html small text is way harder to read for everyone]. Usability guidelines recommend a default font size of at least 12 points (about 16 pixels, but pixels are evil).
▲* [[Template:Resize]]
There is any number of useful resource about readability on the Web. But those three stand out:▼
== Resources on readability ==
▲There
* [http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-usability/web-page-readability.shtml An overview of readability best practices]
* [http://www.laurenscharff.com/research/web_read_lvs.html Research on readability], for advanced users or Wikiproject members
*
== Overuse of color, and too many contrast changes ==
<div style="color:black;"><strong>Status: Completely under construction.</strong></div>
Needs to be expanded, needs references, etc. But this topic is also important.
Line 62 ⟶ 69:
== Not to be conflated with accessibility/length ==
"Accessibility" is related to [[WP:Article size|article length]], not readability (see [[WP:NOTPAPER]]). We do not delete content because an article is "too long." That violates [[WP:Preserve]], a policy, not a guideline. Instead, we split/fork off
== Discussions ==
Line 80 ⟶ 83:
: A simple complementary remark: discussions readability is considerably improved several contexts of the everyday users: when the user is traveling, with suboptimal means of consultation such as a Smartphone and Ipad. For example, it's the first time discussions on Wikipedia is decipherable in the train, to be very prosaic. --[[Utilisateur:Temesis|Temesis]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Temesis|d]]) 3 février 2010 à 14:45 (CET)
==== Needs translation ====
{{hidden | style = border: 1px solid black; width: 65%; | header = Accessibility review of the French layout for discussions (needs to be translated)|contents =▼
▲{{
{{lang|fr|
: Un autre retour, de portée plus générale:<blockquote><p>L'indentation toute seule pour des threads ? L'ergonomie limitée par la technique il y a longtemps, tu connais evidement ? Je voyais ça oublié. C'est drôle de voir ça aujourd'hui sur un site comme wikipedia. Quand c'est évident qu'on peut faire beaucoup mieux (ton 2ème exemple)</p></blockquote>
Line 86 ⟶ 91:
:: C'est ma réponse que Temesis cite dans son premier exemple. L'accessibilité des sites Web est mon domaine depuis des années et je suis dyslexique... j'ai donc cherché à comprendre pourquoi tant de sites me posaient des problèmes, quelles solutions pouvaient y remédier.
:: Il est particulièrement important de guider le regard, et cela me ramène au sujet de cette discussion, les bordures qui délimitent clairement les différentes interventions.--[[Utilisateur:MoniqueBrunel|Monique Brunel]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:MoniqueBrunel|d]]) 3 février 2010 à 19:56 (CET)
{{hab}}{{clear}}
=== Delimitation, ergo, what "readibility" is not ===▼
{{done}}
At Wikipedia, the typical standard [[readability]] description applies:
{{quotebox|'''Readability''' is the ease with which a [[reading (process)|reader]] can [[understanding|understand]] a [[writing|written text]]. In [[natural language]], the readability of text depends on its [[content (media)|content]] (the complexity of its [[vocabulary]] and [[syntax]]) and its presentation (such as [[typography|typographic]] aspects that affect [[legibility]], like [[font size]], [[line height]], [[Kerning|character spacing]], and [[line length]]).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Typographic Readability and Legibility|url=https://webdesign.tutsplus.com/articles/typographic-readability-and-legibility--webdesign-12211|access-date=2020-08-17|website=Web Design Envato Tuts+}}</ref>}}
|