WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: John Foliot
Date: Jan 16, 2009 2:05PM

Jared Smith wrote:
> And if you're going to add a
> worthless element into your content, why not just add the image
> itself?
>
> Take the page in question (http://webaim.org/contact/) - there is no
> way to put the photos in CSS without inserting at least one
> additional, empty element (with it's own CSS definitions) to take up
> their space.

Jared,

If the biographical photos of you and the staff are "worthless", then why
are you adding them to the page? There is a value-add proposition for
including those photos, and with alt="" you are denying non-sighted users
the ability to access or discard that value (unless they jump through
hoops and re-configure their AT to find images with alt="" - at which
point some users then ask people like Randall to tell them what the image
is). This is the crux of the debate.

The photos in question are *NOT* non-essential elements on the page - a
conscious decision was taken to arrange for the photos to be supplied
(likely even engaging a photographer and all staff assembling on a given
day to have pictures taken - they don't strike me as being candid shots),
they were then specifically added to the bio page in association with the
textual content, and they form part of the over-all "message" being
delivered to the majority of users. To suggest that they might add audio
clutter to the content for non-sighted users is a weak argument, and
presumes that you know what all users accessing that page
need/want/require. Are the images "visual clutter"?

When an image reaches the status of requiring in-line placement (so that
you can float it, etc.), then that image has reached the status of having
some "importance" (how "important" remains open for discussion, but surely
higher than background images - which sit in the CSS). I maintain then
that if it is thus important, there should be a value to the @alt
attribute beyond null. If we were to push the envelope just a tad, I
would further suggest that images of highest level importance should
likely also have a longdesc value as well (for the strapping, handsome men
out there).

>
> And as far as functional accessibility goes, there really isn't a heap
> of difference between an image with alt="" and a CSS background image.
> I'm not arguing that the CSS isn't better - it is, but the argument
> that it is necessary or even better for accessibility isn't a very
> strong one.

Agreement here, although methinks that using CSS is a better development
practice. I'd like to see alt="" disappear, and the sooner we start doing
just that, the sooner we will reach that point.

JF
===========================John Foliot
Program Manager
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu
Stanford University
Tel: 650-862-4603

Soap Is a program directed by the
Vice Provost for Student Affairs
============================