Template talk:NYCS

What do others think of using the NYC subway icons inside text? I've created an example at Manhattan/Harlem. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find them highly distracting, personally. They work well in the routeboxes but in prose it's like a polka-dot factory exploded.  LtPowers (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Damn, didn't realize this was still under discussion!) Personally, I love them. They're small enough that I don't find them obtrusive (I recognize that this is a personal opinion, but I really don't find them that distracting), they add a splash of color to the page, and—most importantly—they establish an instant visual connection for travelers before they see the actual signs in NYC. I'm totally on board for this. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to aesthetics, I'm concerned about accessibility for visually impaired readers, and readability on mobile devices. It also makes for a lot of images on a page, which contravenes our image use policy.  LtPowers (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines as PerryPlanet, I think they're great and I love the fact that they're colorful. It doesn't matter to me as a reader that they are images, because they're just small icons. However, if using them will impair readability for the people LtPowers mentions, that's a very strong argument against using them that I believe needs to supersede my preference for them as pretty and also very clear on my browser. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I also find the accessibility argument compelling. They look great in the routeboxes, though. --Peter Talk 20:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the accessibility issue can be addressed by adding an alt tag such as  to the image tag, which should then be handled properly by most tools for visually impaired readers . -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I like them and don't see them as particularly distracting. Might even be helpful to visitors to New York because that's what they're going to see on subway entrances and trains. If accessibility can be addressed, then I'd say go for it. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan, would that code also work well for cell phones? I really would like to keep these, if it's at all reasonable to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ikan - I'm not sure if cell phones are a concern with this template. With visually impaired users the concerns with images is that you want some way for a computer to be able to "read" the image to them - a seeing person can see that this image is Subway Line #4, but a computer cannot.  As a result, the "alt" tag tells the software used by visually impaired people what text to "read" for that image.  With mobile, the concern is typically bandwidth and ensuring that text is readable at a very low resolution, and I'm not sure that either of those would be a problem with this template since the image should be the same size as the text, and it is such a small size image (in bytes) that it should not present any bandwidth concerns. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 00:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * These are very distracting, it's more difficult to focus on the prose presented with the explosion of icons in between. It works better in the listings, but there I feel they put too much focus on what's eventually pretty trivial information. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that not all visually impaired users use screen readers. The truly blind likely do, but others with visual impairments may use other methods like enlarging the text size, or using a magnifier.  This method would work fine with a screen magnifier, but I'm not sure how well it would work for those who need larger text.  LtPowers (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they are a generally good idea that would work well in routeboxes and listings. I must agree that section looks a little odd with all those random circles. Bandwidth shouldn't be an issue, as they are only a few bytes and could probably be decreased even further if made SVGs. Regarding accessibility, the magnifier/larger text issue could be combated by having a tooltip that appears when hovering over the icons, saying something like "Line 1" or "Route A". JamesA  >talk 04:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone uses a mouse, either, but I like the out-of-the-box thinking. LtPowers (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Use only in listings and remove experimental tag
I've added the alt tag and a tooltip to the template, so those accessibility issues have been addressed. Several users have stated that the template doesn't work well in prose, but would everyone be okay with using it in listings (and routeboxes)? – sumone10154 ( talk ) 21:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection (and there's a deafening silence from everyone else so why don't you plunge forward?) --W. Franke-mailtalk 09:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Routeboxes are fine (though I'm still not sure if city district articles should have routeboxes at all), but I'm not sure about listings. LtPowers (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)