E-mail List Archives
Thread: Alt Text
Number of posts in this thread: 14 (In chronological order)
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 9:57AM
Subject: Alt Text
No previous message | Next message →
Hi All
I've got a graphical link on my site with the following alt text
"This Web Accessibility icon serves as a link to download eSSENTIAL
Accessibility assistive technology software for individuals with
physical disabilities.
"
it triggers a warning that I should be using a long desc because it
is over 150 characters, however it really isn't necessary as it isn't
describing what the graphic looks like but what it symbolizes. Is
this acceptable or do I need to change it?
cheers
Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 10:15AM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
No tool can tell you if your alt text is appropriate or not. Only a
human can do that. Long alt text can be burdensome to users and is
often inappropriate. But not always. I think roughly ~100 characters
or so is a threshold at which one might consider using another method
than the alt attribute for conveying the content of the image. This
more lengthy content is typically provided using adjacent text, or a
link to a long description and optionally the longdesc attribute. But
this is not a hard, fast rule.
For the example you presented, I do think the alternative text could
probably be shortened. The fact that it's a graphic and that it's a
link is almost always already conveyed by a screen reader. Something
like "Download eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology" seems
more appropriate, though it's impossible to know without knowing the
content and context of the exact image.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 10:30AM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Jared
I was thinking of shortening it but will have to check with the
Client. It is not apparent that you can download some assistive
device software by clicking on it, it is also in my "accessibility
bar" at the top of the page so putting text around it is not an option.
cheers
Geof
At 11:15 AM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
>No tool can tell you if your alt text is appropriate or not. Only a
>human can do that. Long alt text can be burdensome to users and is
>often inappropriate. But not always. I think roughly ~100 characters
>or so is a threshold at which one might consider using another method
>than the alt attribute for conveying the content of the image. This
>more lengthy content is typically provided using adjacent text, or a
>link to a long description and optionally the longdesc attribute. But
>this is not a hard, fast rule.
>
>For the example you presented, I do think the alternative text could
>probably be shortened. The fact that it's a graphic and that it's a
>link is almost always already conveyed by a screen reader. Something
>like "Download eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology" seems
>more appropriate, though it's impossible to know without knowing the
>content and context of the exact image.
>
>Jared Smith
>WebAIM
>
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
From my research and testing, I've found that a quick identifier in the ALT
text helps a) quickly convey the information to the user, and b) reduces the
number of words I need to use.
Some examples.
Photo: sunset in Rocky Mountain forest.
Logo: U.S. Forest Service.
Pie chart: Number of blue widgets sold in 2009, by sales quarter. (This
sample would also get a longdesc attribute to provide the chart's details.)
I use a colon to separate the identifier from the text so that it pauses the
screen reader for blind users, and also makes grammatical sense to sighted
users.
Geof, for your example I would write this.
Download button: eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology software.
Or...
Download button: eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology software for
individuals with
physical disabilities.
--Bevi Chagnon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
Bevi Chagnon | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | www.PubCom.com
Consultants + Trainers + Designers | for print, web, marketing, Acrobat, &
508
PublishingDC Group Co-Moderator |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PublishingDC
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
Bevi blogs at www.pubcom.com/newsletter
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 11:27AM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Bevi
I think I will reword it just cuz I dont like error messages. :O)
Kind of like a zit on the face before a date. LOL
cheers
Geof
At 12:12 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
> From my research and testing, I've found that a quick identifier in the ALT
>text helps a) quickly convey the information to the user, and b) reduces the
>number of words I need to use.
>Some examples.
>Photo: sunset in Rocky Mountain forest.
>Logo: U.S. Forest Service.
>Pie chart: Number of blue widgets sold in 2009, by sales quarter. (This
>sample would also get a longdesc attribute to provide the chart's details.)
>
>I use a colon to separate the identifier from the text so that it pauses the
>screen reader for blind users, and also makes grammatical sense to sighted
>users.
>
>Geof, for your example I would write this.
>Download button: eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology software.
>Or...
>Download button: eSSENTIAL Accessibility assistive technology software for
>individuals with
>physical disabilities.
>
>--Bevi Chagnon
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. . .
>Bevi Chagnon | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | www.PubCom.com
>Consultants + Trainers + Designers | for print, web, marketing, Acrobat, &
>508
>PublishingDC Group Co-Moderator |
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PublishingDC
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. .
>Bevi blogs at www.pubcom.com/newsletter
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>. .
>
>
>
>
From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 12:54PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
Bevi Chagnon | PubCom wrote:
>
> From my research and testing, I've found that a quick identifier in the
> ALT
> text helps a) quickly convey the information to the user, and b) reduces
> the
> number of words I need to use.
> Some examples.
> Photo: sunset in Rocky Mountain forest.
> Logo: U.S. Forest Service.
> Pie chart: Number of blue widgets sold in 2009, by sales quarter. (This
> sample would also get a longdesc attribute to provide the chart's
> details.)
I would echo agreement with Bevi's 'pattern' here, and have suggested it
in the past as a best practices guideline. Additionally, I 'wrap' the alt
text in [square brackets], for times when images might be disabled for
sighted users, and the image 'interrupts' or skews text flow (or might
seem redundant to some users). For example:
[Photo: Jared Smith] Jared Smith is the Director of WebAIM...
As opposed to:
Jared Smith Jared Smith is the Director of WebAIM...
Just a suggestion however.
> I use a colon to separate the identifier from the text so that it pauses
> the
> screen reader for blind users, and also makes grammatical sense to
> sighted users.
Yup, some common identifiers I use are: [Photo: ], [Icon: ], [Graphic:
], [Chart: ], etc.
JF
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 1:03PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
But JAWS announces it's a graphic anyway, why duplicate it?
cheers
Geof
At 01:55 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
>Bevi Chagnon | PubCom wrote:
> >
> > From my research and testing, I've found that a quick identifier in the
> > ALT
> > text helps a) quickly convey the information to the user, and b) reduces
> > the
> > number of words I need to use.
> > Some examples.
> > Photo: sunset in Rocky Mountain forest.
> > Logo: U.S. Forest Service.
> > Pie chart: Number of blue widgets sold in 2009, by sales quarter. (This
> > sample would also get a longdesc attribute to provide the chart's
> > details.)
>
>I would echo agreement with Bevi's 'pattern' here, and have suggested it
>in the past as a best practices guideline. Additionally, I 'wrap' the alt
>text in [square brackets], for times when images might be disabled for
>sighted users, and the image 'interrupts' or skews text flow (or might
>seem redundant to some users). For example:
>
>[Photo: Jared Smith] Jared Smith is the Director of WebAIM...
>
>As opposed to:
>
>Jared Smith Jared Smith is the Director of WebAIM...
>
>Just a suggestion however.
>
>
> > I use a colon to separate the identifier from the text so that it pauses
> > the
> > screen reader for blind users, and also makes grammatical sense to
> > sighted users.
>
>Yup, some common identifiers I use are: [Photo: ], [Icon: ], [Graphic:
>], [Chart: ], etc.
>
>JF
>
>
>
>
From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 1:18PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
What kind of graphic? To me, there's a huge difference between an image
and a photo in my mind, and a chart versus an icon. Is this distinction
important?
JF
>
From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 1:24PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I would echo agreement with Bevi's 'pattern' here, and have suggested it
> in the past as a best practices guideline.
I know we've gone the rounds on this a few times in the past. I don't
think that either of these approaches to alternative text is
"inaccessible" - we just may differ a bit on details.
I will say, however, that I think this pattern is primarily
recommended to account for piss-poor handling by browsers and
assistive technology. If a screen reader or browser is too incapable
of identifying or rendering alternative text distinctly, should it be
the developer's burden to 'hack' the alt text to make it so? I think
this approach turns "alternative text" into "alternative text plus
some other stuff to make it read/display better". Wouldn't our efforts
be better spent in encouraging browsers and AT to handle alternative
text better, and in promoting guidelines for rendering of alt in HTML5
and the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines?
While I can accept the pattern as acceptable, I won't use it and can't
recommend it. If the nature of an image (it's a photo or a chart,
etc.) is important and is actually CONTENT, then it can and should be
included in the alternative text. But I think using this approach for
EVERY image will result in a lot of overhead and extraneous
information that would be much better handled by the user agent.
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
From: Geof Collis
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 1:33PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
After I sent my message I gave it some more thought and agree it
could be helpful.
cheers
Geof
At 02:19 PM 2/25/2010, you wrote:
>What kind of graphic? To me, there's a huge difference between an image
>and a photo in my mind, and a chart versus an icon. Is this distinction
>important?
>
>JF
>
> >
From: ckrugman
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 2:03PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
If I'm referring to or citing a page as a screen reader I would like to know
the specifics of the content so I am not making a --- of my self if
discussing content.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Alt Text
> What kind of graphic? To me, there's a huge difference between an image
> and a photo in my mind, and a chart versus an icon. Is this distinction
> important?
>
> JF
>
>>
From: John Foliot
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 3:12PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared Smith wrote:
>
>
> I know we've gone the rounds on this a few times in the past. I don't
> think that either of these approaches to alternative text is
> "inaccessible" - we just may differ a bit on details.
We're in agreement here.
> I will say, however, that I think this pattern is primarily
> recommended to account for piss-poor handling by browsers and
> assistive technology. If a screen reader or browser is too incapable
> of identifying or rendering alternative text distinctly, should it be
> the developer's burden to 'hack' the alt text to make it so?
This is likely to get uber-theroretical here.
For me, the base-line goal is to aid in comprehension - a cognitive issue
on the grandest scale that in some ways affects all users, not just users
of AT. I believe that anything an author can do to assist in ensuring a
better understanding of author intent is a Good Thing(tm).
We are actually talking about 2 things here; the use of [square brackets],
and the practice of pre-pending the 'type' of image to the alt text
string.
I will concede that using the [square brackets] feels like a bit of a hack
- perhaps it is - but consider as well that punctuation (any form of
punctuation, including the use of my parenthesis here) serves a cognitive
function. The 'overhead' of adding two extra characters - [] - is
negligible at a technical/file-size level, but *might* aid some sighted
users in their understanding of text and content flow, and the impact on
some forms of AT can be as little as zero (screen readers set to low
verbosity levels will ignore the square brackets). So, near zero pain -
possible gain. It's a pattern, plain and simple; however for patterns to
truly be effective, they must be used consistently.
Signaling what kind of visual element you are using to non-sighted users,
or users of text only user-agents, is also a cognitive mechanism, who's
value (IMHO) outweighs any downside of using *that* pattern. Consider:
Alt="John Foliot"
Alt="Photo: John Foliot"
Alt="Avatar: John Foliot"
(Removing the square brackets to keep the 2 concepts separate for this
discussion)
The subtlety here is minor, yet measurable; if we were to then query a
group of non-sighted users which of the three examples is not a real
likeness of me, those users could only determine accurately that one is,
one isn't, and the third is "I'm not sure". Is this worth having/knowing?
I believe yes, so again near zero pain - real potential for gain. Once
again, this is a pattern, and patterns work best when they are consistent.
Jared asks: "... should it be the developer's burden..."? Only the
developer/content author can know for sure what the intent of using any
graphical element is; for everyone else we can only hope to understand
that intent as fully as we can. I don't see this as a burden, but more the
challenge and responsibility of the author, just as it's the
responsibility to ensure that the writing is clear, that spell checking
has happened, and that interactions with any given web-page is "technology
agnostic" as much as humanly possible. The ongoing question of "what makes
good alternative text" cannot be answered simply, in part *because* the
intent of any image is the real value for your alt text - yes, we can
formulate some guidelines and examples, but like the proverbial answer to
"what is pornography?" the answer more often than not to "what makes for a
good alt text" has the same answer - we can't say for sure exactly, but we
will recognize it when we see it. To me, what makes "good" alt text is
clarity, brevity and accuracy of intent; 3 things I believe this pattern
fosters with some consistency.
> I think
> this approach turns "alternative text" into "alternative text plus
> some other stuff to make it read/display better".
...Whereas I see this as maximizing alt text to get the biggest bang for
my buck. Knowing that the image is a cartoon versus a photograph is, I
think, an important distinction, and this pattern achieves that with one
word. (Can't get a lower overhead than that)
> Wouldn't our efforts
> be better spent in encouraging browsers and AT to handle alternative
> text better, and in promoting guidelines for rendering of alt in HTML5
> and the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines?
See my comment above re: pornography and what is, what isn't. I would also
add that while the alt attribute is certainly a huge aid to users of some
types of AT, I also chafe at the thought that alt text is exclusively
there for screen reading technology, so any guideline must also be
user-agent agnostic as well.
>
> While I can accept the pattern as acceptable, I won't use it and can't
> recommend it. If the nature of an image (it's a photo or a chart,
> etc.) is important and is actually CONTENT, then it can and should be
> included in the alternative text. But I think using this approach for
> EVERY image will result in a lot of overhead and extraneous
> information that would be much better handled by the user agent.
Jared, I would never advocate this as being a "MUST", but I think that
your concern over 'overhead' is perhaps disproportionate to the reality
that AT users are accustomed to dealing with, and I circle back to the
need for consistency in patterns to ensure maximum effect. It would be an
interesting question to pose directly to screen reader users however:
perhaps when you are working on V3 of your survey (if in fact there will
be a V3), that a neutral enough question querying users on this might be
of value?
Meanwhile, what do *you*, gentle reader, think?
Cheers!
JF
>
> Jared Smith
> WebAIM.org
>
From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 3:42PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:13 PM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I will concede that using the [square brackets] feels like a bit of a hack
> - perhaps it is - but consider as well that punctuation (any form of
> punctuation, including the use of my parenthesis here) serves a cognitive
> function.
Sure. But I think that user agents can and should make this visual
distinction, not authors.
> Signaling what kind of visual element you are using to non-sighted users,
> or users of text only user-agents, is also a cognitive mechanism, who's
> value (IMHO) outweighs any downside of using *that* pattern. Consider:
>
> Alt="John Foliot"
> Alt="Photo: John Foliot"
> Alt="Avatar: John Foliot"
I think that it absolutely makes sense in the cases you've mentioned.
But for many (probably most) images on the web, it doesn't matter to
the user at all what TYPE of image it is or that an image is even
present. They simply want the content. This is where using this
pattern universally for all images makes me squirm. If it's important
for the user to know what type of image it is or that it is an image
at all, sure, put it in alt. If not, don't.
I'm confident most screen readers and sighted users (at least the VERY
few that happen to need to see alt text anyway) would have a degraded
experience if every image that presented content suddenly were recoded
to start with "Graphic:" or similar. And has been noted, the screen
reader typically reads "graphic" before each image anyway, so this
really is redundant. If browsers don't provide a visual distinction
(nearly all of them do) between alt text and plain text when images
are disabled or unavailable, then they need to fix this issue.
Consider alt="Photo: iPhone" on an ecommerce site. I don't care that
it's a photo or a logo or an icon or even an image at all. I only care
that it's the iPhone. Or alt="Graphic: Search". I don't care that it's
graphical button or a standard button - I just want to know what the
thing does. It's in these cases where the graphic type doesn't matter
that I think the pattern you recommend becomes extraneous and
burdensome to end users. Of course the difference is minor and
certainly neither is "inaccessible".
Jared
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Thu, Feb 25 2010 4:06PM
Subject: Re: Alt Text
← Previous message | No next message
My personal opinion is if you need a definitive answer on how good an alt text is for a specific purpose, you will need to conduct user testing.
If you do not conduct user testing (for whatever reason,) then you need to educate yourself the best you can about how the user will experience the alt text, understand how the image is being used, and construct the best alt text you can. It seems that most of the time that approach leads to adequate results. If you want to do better than adequate, then you need to seriously consider user testing.
I agree with Jared about the visual appearance of alt text. I also recognize that if you are implementing a site or web app today, you will have to deal with browsers as they handle it now. So, do what you need to do to make it accessible today, but also work on the people developing the user agents so that they produce a better user experience tomorrow.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE A USER AGENT ATHEIST? If there is, I might consider becoming one after spending a day trying to make something accessible despite a seeming ocean of user agent quirks. :)
Tim