WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images

for

From: Mike Barlow
Date: Jun 1, 2016 5:06AM

Léonie - I liked your article on emotion rich images and it made me think
about how I handle such situations.
Normally when I design a page, I advocate if an image needs to be someplace
and it is purely decorative then it should be used as a background image
(hence no alt attribute required).
If an image is NOT used as a background then it does need a non null alt
attribute.
And after reading through this thread I see no reason to change my method.
HOWEVER, what I will probably start to consider is IS this really a
"decorative" image or is it an "emotion rich" image?
Now if only there were some way for us to tell AT that this is an "emotion
rich" image vs a "content rich" image and allow users the choice of telling
AT to ignore emotion rich images or not.

*Mike Barlow*
Web Application Developer
Web Accessibility/Section 508 SME

Lancaster, Pa 17601
Office: 732.835-7557
Cell: 732.682.8226
e-mail: <EMAIL REMOVED>

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Léonie Watson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Not sure if this is useful, but a while ago I wrote about my take on
> images and alts:
> http://tink.uk/text-descriptions-emotion-rich-images/
>
> Léonie.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> > On Behalf Of _mallory
> > Sent: 01 June 2016 09:17
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
> >
> > I waffled on this with product lists. I ended up using alts but really
> wish I
> > hadn't now that I look back. I should have used alt="".
> >
> > This is what screen reader users get today, maybe they love this but it
> drives
> > me batty:
> > "Foto: GEHEUGENKAART SANDISK MICRO SDHC CLASS4 32GB +ADAPTER"
> > GEHEUGENKAART SANDISK MICRO SDHC CLASS4 32GB +ADAPTER (both are
> > inside a single link to the product's page).
> >
> > Certainly a list of human names sounds less irritating than product names
> > supplied from a central european manufacturer database, but still... the
> > length of that compared to "Sue Smith" pushes me even closer to alt=""
> for
> > those images.
> >
> > But I'm quite interested to hear if people, esp low-vision, would still
> really
> > rather have that alt attr filled. If so, I'd sleep better :P
> >
> > _mallory
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:41:34PM +0000, Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> > > I think it would be difficult to claim the pictures are just
> decorative. I
> > suspect they are present to allow someone using the directory to be able
> to
> > identify the person.
> > >
> > > I was going to suggest that alt="" would be ok since the information is
> > redundant due to the name--but I guess that doesn't make sense. If you
> > removed all the names and replaced them with just the images, the
> directory
> > would be pretty worthless.
> > >
> > > And it appears Bevi answered the question that might go something like
> "If
> > someone uses the alt text to identify the picture, then they can't be
> using
> > the picture to identify the people. So why include the alt text?"
> Apparently,
> > as long as the alt text identifies the image, the user at least as has
> the option
> > to use the picture for the intended user task--to identify the person.
> It really
> > isn't for me to say how they go about doing that or what degree of
> disability
> > they need to have before they would use an alt text. Thanks for the
> > information, Bevi.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Chagnon | PubCom
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:00 PM
> > > To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
> > >
> > > Our office always tags them and we try to minimize the length of the
> Alt-
> > text to avoid redundency as much as possible.
> > >
> > > I found from my work with people with low vision that they often can
> see
> > that there's a photo/graphic, but can't make out the details and want
> > reassurance that they aren't missing anything.
> > >
> > > Another way to think about it: I doubt anyone could file a complaint or
> > lawsuit for including the Alt-Text, but they might be able to if there
> wasn't
> > Alt-text.
> > >
> > > --Bevi Chagnon
> > > www.PubCom.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Alex Hall
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:50 PM
> > > To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
> > >
> > > Personally, I'd always tag the images. No, doing so likely won't offer
> > > additional details to the user, but which would you rather hear while
> > > browsing:
> > >
> > > John Smith
> > > img_0040297 at 2016-04-01 8:27, image
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > John Smith
> > > Picture of John Smith, image
> > >
> > > If nothing else, this tells the user they aren't missing details by
> not seeing
> > the image, and that the image is just there as a visual reference.
> > > That is, it isn't a link or clickable item they need to interact with
> to do
> > something with John.
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Campbell, John < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I was looking at an online directories that have Names and Data next
> > > > to or under the image of the person. Do you think they need to Alt
> > > > Tagged anyway or are the images considered decorative?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > John R. Campbell, MS, ATP, RET
> > > > Director of Accessibility & Access
> > > > Lehigh Carbon Community College
> > > > > > > > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alex Hall
> > > Automatic Distributors, IT department
> > > <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > > > > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > > archives at
> > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > >
> > > > >