Template talk:Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Accessibility

@Thisisnotatest what do you see as the primary challenges with this template? Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen That was lazy of me to not post a talk item. I'll also plead guilty to not having enough spoons to do this for every problem transit template I'm encountering, and that's unlikely to change. But I'll give it a shot for this one and you can pretty much guess most of the same issues apply to all or most line templates, including the source {{Railway line legend}}. And actually, as I dive into this, I see it really needs the {{accessibility dispute}} template rather than the {{overcolored}} template, so I'll take care of that once I've left this comment.

Short version

Either:

There needs to be extensive work to make this line diagram accessible, or
The table at Sepulveda Transit Corridor Phase 1 alternative details needs to be brought fully into sync with the line diagram, and the top of the line diagram needs to link to that table.

Long version:

For people with low vision who do not use a screen reader, most of the SVG images for alternatives 1 and 3, and perhaps a few of the images in the other alternatives, have low contrast with the background and will not be visible to them.

For blind people, they likely are missing a lot of content. Ideally a sighted person who is familiar with screen readers (I'm the first but not the second) would test this. But I used the very primitive Safari's Edit, then Speech, then Start Speaking to listen to the page.

Only the plain text is read
But it's all run together, such as Sherman Way Maintenance Facility (I'm guessing from the diagram appearance those are two separate things)
None of the line symbols are read, so I can't tell that Sepulveda is a transfer stop, that the line is entering the center median of I-405, or that there's a split at Van Nuys/MOL, or that the UCLA mention refers to a bus connection.
None of the connecting lines are read, so I don't know the Sepulveda stop has parking and connects to the G line, or that there is a connection to Amtrack and MetroLink.
Whatever solution is proposed for this would also need to work for line diagrams that show multiple parallel and diverging lines.

For people who can see, the tooltips that appear when hovering over the line symbols aren't particularly meaningful. For example, if I hover over the alternative 1 transfer stop symbol for Sepulveda boulevard, I get the mystifying tooltip "exSTR; BHFq orange; lhBHF".

A better tooltip might be the full text in {{Railway line legend}} and I was going to copy that into this comment. Except that I see that particular symbol is not actually represented in {{Railway line legend}}, so there is the additional issue that not all symbols in the line diagram are defined.

It's not great to rely on hover text anyway since it's hard to acquire on mobile if indeed it can be done at all. So for people, it might be too great of a cognitive load to have to go back and forth between the line diagram and the legend.

It would be great if someone who knows their way around Lua programming could come up with a way to automatically add a link at the top of the line diagram to skip to a list version, and to generate that list version, which would be collapsed by default. I can't see the hundreds of line diagram templates on Wikipedia being fixed manually.

The information belongs in the template, not just on pages that use the template, because editors need the template to be accessible to them. But, there is an alternative:

If the phase one table on Sepulveda Transit Corridor#Alternative_details were edited to sync it exactly with the line diagram on the template - in the exact same sequence with the same number of data rows - then the line diagram could be made accessible simply by adding at the top something like "This line map is a graphic representation of Sepulveda Transit Corridor Phase 1 alternative details." The first column in the alternative details table must have an entry in each row, so the "Station" heading would need to change to something like "Station or feature" to accommodate the maintenance facilities and the I-405 entry.

Okay, I can see why I don't have the spoons to do this sort of thing regularly. But thank you for asking. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest thank you for taking the time, I really appreciate it and I hope that other editors do too. Broadly speaking, all railway route diagrams of this type are inaccessible in the ways you've described. The real challenge is creating and maintaining a textual alternative. It probably can't be done with article prose; there are too many details that wouldn't belong there. I think a broader discussion at Template talk:Routemap is a good idea.

If I were creating a text alternative just to alternative 1, it might go like this:

"New elevated railway line from Van Nuys to Expo/Sepulveda, both of which are existing stations. From Getty Center to Expo/Sepulveda, the line is located in the median of Interstate 405. Van Nuys has connections to Amtrak and Metrolink. The proposed East Valley Light Rail line would connect there as well. New intermediate stations include Sherman Way, Sepulveda, US 101, Getty Center, Westwood/VA Hospital, and Santa Monica Boulevard. Sepulveda connects to the G line. Getty Center is connected to the Getty Museum with a dedicated tram. Westwood/VA Hospital would connect to an extension of the D line and have a bus connection to UCLA. Expo/Sepulveda connects to the E line. There would be parking facilities at Van Nuys, Sepulveda, and Expo/Sepulveda. There would be a new maintenance facility between Sherman Way and Sepulveda."

Thoughts on that as a description? Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I fear that this is heading in the same way as Template talk:Railway line legend#title text? or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Line colors - somebody comes along and essentially says "I don't understand this, it needs to be changed", and we respond with "that's the way that it's been for fifteen-some years, it would be a massive job to alter the way that these diagrams are done, since there are many thousands".

Template:Sepulveda Transit Corridor is an RDT. If there are accessibility problema with RDTs, please take this to WT:RDT and not the talk page of one specific template, particularly since it's used on only one article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen I used to think that would be the best solution. The problem is that if a listener becomes confused partway through, it becomes hard to navigate. I've come to think that the best alternative text for this diagram would be to link from the diagram to that table in the article that I linked to, corrected to present the information in the same sequence and at the same level of detail that the diagram does. That would give the listener full control over how fast and in what sequence they experience that large and detailed information. There may be additional accessibility adjustments needed to that table, but that's a discussion for that page, not this one.

I can't do it right now, but I will follow your suggestion to raise it at Template talk:Routemap.Thisisnotatest (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Redrose64's suggestion, Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template may be a better place to raise this, despite the page being marked historical. Whichever you choose, neutral notices to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways would be appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that its project page is marked as historical, Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template should not be used. I archived all the discussions there and put a notice to see Template talk:Routemap for active discussions, since that is where they have de facto moved. -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]