WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Léonie Watson
Date: Jan 15, 2009 2:00AM

"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. I think your logic is a bit of a stretch."

As has been said in this thread elsewhere, we're unlikely to find full agreement on this. People who lost their sight during their lifetime are likely to respond differently to alt descriptions, than people who were born without sight.

As someone who falls into the former category, and still visualises a great deal, I find that alt descriptions often act as cues to my imagination, as much as they provide an accurate and specific description of something. Take an image with an alt text of "Jared Smith", on a profile page...

The alt text doesn't tell me much about the way Jared looks, but it does give me a cue to visualise a typical profile page in my head. This doesn't deal with specifics, but it does add to my overall sense of how the page might look. It might also give me a cue to consider what Jared actually does look like (tall and strapping I've heard ;). This too can add to the experience of visiting a page, although not perhaps in the conventional way intended by alt descriptions.


"I admit that this is an area of accessibility where there will never be 100% agreement. 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. But they are sure fun for accessibility folks to debate ad nauseum."


Here I suspect you're right. I completed the survey, but don't recall whether people were asked about the time when they lost their sight. I think this would be a critical factor in trying to find a common ground with the issue of alt texts. Very much looking forward to the results though.



Regards,
Léonie.

--
Nomensa - humanising technology

Léonie Watson | Director of Accessibility
t. +44 (0)117 929 7333 |

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: 14 January 2009 19:54
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] A larger discussion (was RE: Inline Images and ALT text)

John Foliot wrote:
> The inclusion of a photo of Jared is done deliberately. It is not a
> "decorative" image per-se, it is provided to allow folks to know what
> Jared looks like, so that (for example) when you run into him at a
> conference you can say hi to him, or whatever. As such, it is an
> "image of value" as opposed to something that is purely decorative in nature.

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..." :-)

> 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. 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. A screen reader could be set to have them identified when reading. By following your recommendation, you are now forcing the identification of the image upon users that may not want that information. Most blind users I've spoken to do not want images identified just because they are present.
They want content - and in this case, the entirety of the content is already presented in text.

I admit that this is an area of accessibility where there will never be 100% agreement. 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. But they are sure fun for accessibility folks to debate ad nauseum.

Jared Smith
WebAIM