WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Is "this-or-that logo" adequate in an ALT text?

for

From: Jukka Korpela
Date: Aug 19, 2002 1:34AM

<EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:

> It's hard to come up with a general "best rule" for alt text, since in
> many cases it's a matter of style.

I think the _general_ rule is easy: the alt text works optimally as a
replacement for the image, in situations where the image is not displayed.
In _specific_ cases, like the case of company logos, we might have different
views on what solutions best comply with the general rule.

> If you made a test of 10 different
> images and asked 10 different accessibility "experts" to provide alt
> text, you will likely get 10 different sets of answers.

Maybe, but that would be alarming. It is true that e.g.
http://www.access-board.gov itself uses e.g. alt="bullet" in its simulation
of a bulleted list, resulting in things like

bullet Evacuation Planning - -

but I would say that 10 accessibility experts out 10 would admit, after a
consideration of the situation, that this makes no sense, and they might
have two or three real alternatives (namely "" and "*" and "-" in general,
and hardly anything but "" in this case, since the items are already
separate paragraphs).

For two very common cases, namely text as image (excluding the special logo
case we're discussing) and purely decorative images, 11 experts out of 10
should really have perfect agreement.

> In nearly every case,
> it is better to have tried and put what YOU think is appropriate --
> based on your knowledge of assistive technology -- than to attempt to
> please everyone with "the perfect answer."

I am sure that people who write alt="red bullet" or alt="Turn images on!"
have really regarded them as appropriate. Of course, they hardly have much
knowledge about assistive technology, but in addition to that, they lack
simpler, easier understanding as well. In this issue, just trying doesn't
help. You need to try to do the right thing. (And then you might still
produce something less than optimal, but you will hardly produce alt="red
bullet".)

The main reason for my message was that I realized that there is a rich
supply of misleading information, even from organizations that are
specifically devoted to accessibility or have taken a strong position in
favor of accessibility. The Section 508 guide really says that "when an
image is used to represent page content, the image must have a text
description accompanying it that explains the meaning of the image". If
_they_ draw conclusions like alt="bullet", then what can we expect ordinary
authors to do?

> It is good to consider what the "best" alt text is. It is more
> important to have a "decent" alt text than to achieve this mythical
> "perfect" one.

In general, certainly.

> PS: Okay, I will address the real issue instead of merely the meta-
> issue. Consider a page which has logo, such as the HTML Writers
> Guild's site. The logo is a button which reads "HTML Writers
> Guild." Then you've got an <h1> with the same text. What should
> the alt text be?

This is about a logo, which is a special case where experts might really
disagree. My point in the current message is to emphasize that _most_ alt
texts are not subject to essential disagreement between experts who are
awake.

But I'd like to add that although alt texts of the type "this-or-that logo"
have become somewhat paradigmatic, this isn't really a reason to favor them.
Rather, to do things otherwise, at least on pages _about_ accessibility.
Even if "this-or-that logo" may work in the hands of an expert, the idea is
easily misunderstood by less experienced people who understand it so that
_generally_ an alt text should be a description of an image.

--
Jukka Korpela, senior adviser
TIEKE Finnish Information Society Development Centre
http://www.tieke.fi
Phone: +358 9 4763 0397 Fax: +358 9 4763 0399


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/