WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: A larger discussion (was RE: Inline Images and ALT text)

for

From: John Foliot
Date: Jan 14, 2009 2:15PM

Jared Smith wrote:
>
> I would agree that the image is not decorative. However, I would argue
> that the content of the image ("Jared Smith") is already presented in
> text. Adding the alternative text would be redundant. If the purpose
> of the image was truly to provide a description of myself, I'd add alt
> text akin to, "A strapping, handsome man..." :-)

2 points: 1) that would be more appropriate as the longdesc text, 2) proof
of the subjectiveness of "appropriate" alt text... (<huge grin>)

> > It is also
> > entirely feasible that a non-sighted user might want a copy of that
image
> > (for a report, to add to their social network page, to share with an
> > associate, etc.), yet by not indicating that the image is part of the
page
> > (and using alt=""), we/you are deliberately "hiding" that information
"of
> > value" from the non-sighted user.
>
> And it is also entirely feasible (and I would argue more likely) that
> the user does not care nor want to be informed of the presence of an
> image just because it's an image.

Perhaps, but it is not *just* an image, it is an image that has some value
to it - it is being provided for a *reason*, else why insert it into the
page. It is directly related to, and in support of, the content it is
associated to.


> I think your logic is a bit of a
> stretch. There's nothing that precludes a screen reader user from
> finding images that don't have alt text.

...and web accessibility is more than just screen readers. C'mon Jared...
(<smile>)

> A screen reader could be set
> to have them identified when reading.

As an image, yes. However without actual text-value(s) associated to the
image, how does the user *know* that it is a photo of you, and not a
non-valuable decorative image? http://www.webaim.org/contact has 8
different biographical photos (out of 30 images present - 14 inline and 16
"background") Why make this difficult on the non-sighted user?

WCAG2.0:
Perceivable - Information and user interface components must be
presentable to users in ways they can perceive.
* This means that users must be able to perceive the information
being presented (it can't be invisible to all of their senses)

Without reconfiguring their AT, by default images with alt="" are not
identified to the end user - it is left out of the audio stream (or
Braille output).

> By following your
> recommendation, you are now forcing the identification of the image
> upon users that may not want that information.

You are forcing that picture on sighted users who may not want it
either... (not that it's a bad picture <grin>). I find this argument weak
- I have also heard from screen reader users that they want to be informed
of "significant" information, and that they want to decide for themselves
what is important or not, they prefer not to leave it to the "webmaster"
to decide... If a screenreader user "really" does not want to be informed
of inline images, they should configure *their* setup to behave this way.
(In W3C parlance, this is known as "author proposes, user disposes") And
by rights, if your photograph was non-essential to the content it should
be rendered via CSS as a background image: for the most part, alt="" is an
old-school hack that emerged back when we had no other way of solving this
issue.

> Most blind users I've
> spoken to do not want images identified just because they are present.

However in this instance, it's not just *any* image, again, in context, it
is an associated image of "value". It's not some swirly fancy bit of
eye-candy, it's your "official" bio photo - the same photo used in
numerous other web pages and related marketing pieces used at WebAIM. By
virtue of that, it has importance, and I believe you do a disservice to
the non-sighted by not specifically announcing its presence on the page.

> They want content - and in this case, the entirety of the content is
> already presented in text.

It is? I disagree. Your picture is an important part of the overall
content of the bio (else why include it?), yet for the non-sighted, you
have specifically not made its presence easily discernable... oh sure,
they can re-configure their AT to seek out the image here, but that is an
undue burden on them.

>
> I admit that this is an area of accessibility where there will never
> be 100% agreement.

Here we agree. (I also miss the days when we had larger, open discussions
such as this... web accessibility lists have become quite dry lately).
Hopefully the survey results will help us all (and I am very thankful that
WebAIM took this initiative for long overdue research).

> WebAIM will be compiling results from our screen
> reader survey in the next few weeks and I think they will generally
> show that these types of things make absolutely no difference to
> screen reader users.

Really? I suspect that it will not be so Black and White... again, when I
discuss this type of thing with screen reader users, most often I get a
50/50 split, but my pool of interviewees is far smaller than what your
survey is (hopefully) attracting, so time will tell. However, I think
that it is important that these types of "subjective" topics are also
discussed within experts communities, as from those types of discussions
emerge new thoughts and ideas, and that's always a good thing.


JF