WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)

for

From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Jan 19, 2007 4:00PM

Keith Parks wrote:
> Thought this should branch into its own thread (for those who care
> about such things)
>
> I had been doing the same thing with Logo, Photo, etc. references in
> ALT tags, but I recently came across this very thorough WebAIM
> article on ALT text...
>
> <http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/alt_text.php>;
>
> which made me rethink some things. In that author's way of thinking,
> you would only include that sort of information if it was relevant to
> the purpose of the graphic. Whether it is a photo of a student using
> a computer, or a clip-art illustration of a student using a computer
> would likely be irrelevant.

Perhaps, but Devil's Advocate here: 2 questions - 1) is a clip art image the
same as a photograph? 2) Why does (did) the content author choose to use one
over the other?

It would seem that the first answer is fairly self evident - of course they
are different. But the second question requires context, which I suggest is
at least hinted at by describing what type of graphic we are using:

alt="[Photo: a student using a computer]"
alt="[Graphic: a student using a computer]"

Subtle, to be sure, but distinct.

>
> A brief quote:
>> Images that contain important content
>>
>> If the image or graphic contains information that is relevant to
>> the content of the site, then the alt attribute should also provide
>> that content, in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the
>> image. Remember that the purpose of the image is not necessarily
>> the same as the appearance of the image.

OK, but as a content author, a conscious decision was made to choose a photo
over a clipart graphic. Why? Sometimes it may be as simple as budget, but
other times it may be because one was more relevant that the other. If this
is the case, should we not at least acknowledge it somehow?

Looking at the referenced page at WebAIM
[http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/alt_text.php], the second image is
described as:

alt="Portrait of Silvia Alvarez"

However... It is actually a "painted" portrait of Silvia Alvarez, as opposed
to a photograph. Whether or not this distinction is important (or not) may
not necessarily be up to us as the content creator to determine - we do know
however that painted portraits can often be "glamorized", as they are
interpretations of the subject matter, rather than true photographic
records. And so I pose the question, why not instead use:

alt="[Painting - Portrait of Silvia Alvarez]"

Now, the article does go on and speaks to the various possible ALT text
values the image could take, but I would argue that in all cases (even when
it would be obvious that it is a painting - the art historian or teacher
scenario) adding the additional bit of information does not hurt anyone, but
*does* add enhancements not obvious at first pass:

1) Search engine string: There are literally hundreds (thousands?)
of photos of Angelina Jolie, just ask Google. However, if I add painting to
the query string, it greatly improves my relevance choices.

2) "Presuming" that the only people that will view a page in it's
intended context (art history, art instruction), is, to me, simply that:
presumptuous. In context it may seem obvious that a painting teacher would
post paintings of subjects on the site, however there is no way of assuring
that every visitor would presume to know/understand that (search engine
business again), and/or out of context, it *could* be a photo that students
would be using as a "baseline", that they then must paint and bring to the
next class. Plausible...

At any rate, I do pose this as much as a question as it is my current
thoughts; I welcome any discussion/debate, as this is how we establish best
practices.

Thoughts?

JF