File talk:States recognising the Armenian Genocide.svg
Map for Libya is incorrect as the news source is from 2019 using the Tobruk government based on Libyan House of Representatives as a source for entire country. UN-based Libyan government in Tripoli (Government of National Accord) did not recognize it, using entire map for Libya is not correct. Official UN-led government of Libya did not recognize the resolution. As of today, source and power of Libyan government is under UN-backed government in Tripoli, which has not recognized it.
The map has to be changed to not show Libya under a full color when 1) UN-based government did not recognize it, 2) Tobruk government has agreed to give power back to the UN-government under Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210324-libya-s-eastern-region-hands-power-to-un-backed-interim-government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsng7ba (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Update needed to include Mexico edit
Looks like the senate of Mexico recognized the genocide. Would an editor with such experience be able to add Mexico to the map? Many thanks, Archives908 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Colorblind friendly red and green? (copied and continued from User talk:Frans Fowler) edit
Is there such a thing? You've tagged File:States recognising the Armenian Genocide.svg, where the red and green color scheme makes it really clear to the non-colorblind person what they are seeing without even looking at the legend. Buidhe (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Buidhe. What is the non-colorblind person seeing so clearly, and why, in your view, is a red-and-green colour scheme in particular helpful to convey that information? For example, could hatching and cross-hatching, or distinct greys, convey the information just as well? Frans Fowler (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am thinking that, at least in Western countries, "red" means "no" and "green" means "yes", thus when the map is about Recognition of the Armenian genocide the viewer can easily translate that into yes—recognizes, no-doesn't recognize, and gray–no official stance. I don't see how you can get the same effect with cross hatching or different shades of gray. Buidhe (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again, @Buidhe. A "yes/no effect" (if there is one) is less important than making the information in the map identifiable and meaningful to a wider range of readers. Commons:Creating accessible illustrations provides help. ------Frans Fowler (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm all for improving accessibility if it can be done in a way that is not detrimental to the majority of readers. However, if 5% of the population is color blind, I'm not sure it's an improvement to make a map that is more readable to them but less obvious to 95% of readers who are not colorblind. Buidhe (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Buidhe. There are a couple of suggestions in the accessibility guideline:
- Use redundant coding. This means don't use color as the only way of distinguishing between items. Also use patterns or hatchings or different shapes.
- Use colors that contrast in hue as well as brightness.
- Don't they help at all? --- Frans Fowler (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Buidhe. There are a couple of suggestions in the accessibility guideline:
- I'm all for improving accessibility if it can be done in a way that is not detrimental to the majority of readers. However, if 5% of the population is color blind, I'm not sure it's an improvement to make a map that is more readable to them but less obvious to 95% of readers who are not colorblind. Buidhe (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again, @Buidhe. A "yes/no effect" (if there is one) is less important than making the information in the map identifiable and meaningful to a wider range of readers. Commons:Creating accessible illustrations provides help. ------Frans Fowler (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I am thinking that, at least in Western countries, "red" means "no" and "green" means "yes", thus when the map is about Recognition of the Armenian genocide the viewer can easily translate that into yes—recognizes, no-doesn't recognize, and gray–no official stance. I don't see how you can get the same effect with cross hatching or different shades of gray. Buidhe (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Accessibility is not negotiable. Just pick different colors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- The same problem applies to much of Category:Maps of the world showing international recognition. IMO it's fine as long as there's a significant contrast of lightness, looking at the legend still won't usually be necessary, as things become obvious in context. (The false interpretation, that only Turkey and two other states recognise the genocide, is absurd and easy to rule out) SmallJarsWithGreenLabels (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again, Buidhe.
- This has been been suggested over at the Commons Graphic Lab Illustration Workshop. It would solve the accessibility problem without (I imagine) causing readers any inconvenience. Would you be willing and able to make a similar change to the States recognising the Armenian Genocide file and its legend, please? ----Frans Fowler (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again, Buidhe.
- @Buidhe: As perfectly summarized by Koavf, Accessibility is not negotiable. I invite you to understand that, respect Frans Fowler's proposals and pick colorblind-friendly colors. Daniele Fisichella 01:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
