Talk:Levittown station

Photo and infobox formatting needs to be reviewed and improved

More and more image-type content (photo, expanded infobox, etc.) has been added to this article over the last several years, giving it an increasingly cluttered look that makes it difficult to read, particularly for people with visual impairments. The way the article is currently formatted, with sandwiched text, appears to violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Accessibility standards which urge editors to "Avoid placing images on the left hand side as a consistent left hand margin makes reading easier" and "Avoid sandwiching text between two images or, unless absolutely necessary, using fixed image sizes." At this point, the left-justified photo should be removed or repositioned in an image gallery, and/or, the infobox should be decreased in size in order to bring the article back into compliance with the MOS and make it more accessible for Wikipedia users with visual impairments. - 47thPennVols (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: The rules you've linked to do more harm than good for articles like this. Moving the image to a gallery (which breaks the guideline that images should be with the text they illustrate) or forcing a smaller thumbnail would not have any actual benefit here.

The rule about sandwiching dates back over 15 years to when screens were much smaller and browsers were poor at adaptive rescaling. It's simply not an issue in 2023 when many readers are on mobile browsers, and the vast majority of desktop readers are on modern browsers on >1000px screens.

The prohibition on left hand images also needs to go - it's based on a misunderstanding of actual accessibility needs. The actual need is to avoid a ragged left margin (caused by text that is not left-justified). A left-aligned image does not cause a ragged left margin - certainly not in cases like this where the image is as long as the section. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

With respect, I have to disagree with you. Thousands of Wikipedians make the decision, daily, to follow Wikipedia's MOS/Accessibility Standards, which is why the majority of articles are formatted without sandwiched text and with the majority of their images justified to the right side. Sandwiched text continues to be a significant problem for many people with visual impairments (people of all ages who have low vision issues, as well as many individuals who use screen readers because they are blind or have other vision problems). In addition to making it harder for individuals with vision problems to actually read the text, it can also make it harder for individuals with learning disabilities to comprehend the text. -47thPennVols (talk)

Can you point to any professionally written accessibility guides that support that? (That's an honest question, not just trying to force you to do research for me.) The MOS does not provide any links to back up its claims, and the guides I can find (such as Princeton's) only discuss the ragged left margin. There needs to be a compelling reason to ban images from appearing opposite an infobox, given that a substantial number of articles don't have text longer than the infobox, and the MOS fails to provide any evidence.

I appreciate your willingness to have a conversation regarding this issue. There are actually multiple professional accessibility guides available which explain the rationale for aligning article text at the left margin and for avoiding sandwiched text altogether. The easiest place to find guidance is often through educational institutions because accessible design has been a requirement for K-12 schools and universities across the United States for many years (due to the Americans with Disabilities Act); many corporations and non-profit organizations also have created guides for their personnel as well.

There are various reasons why it's harder for people with vision problems or learning disabilities to read and comprehend sandwiched text and text that is not consistently left aligned. One of the things that research has shown is that readers actually do better, both speed-wise and from a comprehension standpoint, when text is left-aligned (even readers who don't have visual or cognitive impairments). This is because consistent left alignment enables the human eye to more easily find the start of the next line of text as it travels across and down a paragraph (whereas, having one paragraph start with left-aligned text and the second start with an image that forces text to the right of the image, followed by a third paragraph that is aligned left, forces the eye to "hunt" for the start of the next sentence, which can make students with cognitive issues lose their place when trying to read, or worse, completely lose their focus and train of thought). It can also be particularly hard for older readers who use progressive lenses or bifocals to retain their place in an article (particularly when reading an article on a phone, tablet, or computer). Again, there are multiple places to find accessibility guides, and some are more comprehensive than others, but one thing you'll consistently see is the recommendation to left-align text. I'll provide a few examples of accessibility guides here to get you started:

• Design for readability and Use images and media to enhance understanding (Harvard University);
• Why we left align (University of New Brunswick); and
• Layout (scroll down), in Creating a dyslexia friendly workplace (British Dyslexia Association).

I hope this information is helpful. Kind Regards. - 47thPennVols (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Amtrak service

Amtrak service lasted for a few years. A few Clockers were stopping here (and other commuter stations), even with the November 14, 1971 timetable (see [1]). By June this is down to a brief mention: [2]. It's still listed in October 1972, if you squint: [3]. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The May 19, 1974 timetable ([4]) doesn't list the marginal stops at all. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)