E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: Carol Foster
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2001 2:54PM
Subject: alt text subtleties
No previous message | Next message →

Hi,
Apologies if this has been discussed before -- I am new to the list, and
I got an error message when I tried to search the archives.
Here are some guidelines we are currently leaning towards using for some
issues that have arisen about alt text for images, along with related
questions:
1. We are starting to use brackets [] around alt text, as is done on
the Bobby site and some others. This helps a lot in lynx, which runs
alt text and regular text together in a way that can be very confusing.
It could be really annoying in screen readers though. In JAWS the
punctuation can be turned off. Does anyone know if this is a common way
to use JAWS (with punctuation turned off), or if this can be done in
other screen readers? How do others handle this apparent conflict
between lynx and screen readers?
2. "spacer" versus alt="" versus alt=" ": Here there may be conflicts
between what's best for screen reader users and what's best for sighted
Web users who do not download images. We use "spacer" or "filler" if an
image is a spacer or filler and it is visible to a sighted person who
surfs the Web without downloading images. This is because alt="" looks
the same as no alt text in that case. If an image is a spacer or filler
that is so small a sighted surfer is not likely to notice it (when not
downloading images) then we use alt="". Do you think sighted people
understand what the blank box that shows up for alt=" " means?
The only time we've used alt=" " was for some little images used to
round out some corners. They were not really spacers though they did
not carry very meaningful meaningful information. They did show up when
not downloading images. It seemed too complicated to explain what they
were in alt text, so we hope that the alt=" " will convey that no one is
missing anything.
So, should we use alt=" " for all of those spacers and fillers? I
believe WebAIM suggests using alt="", but then I am afraid that, as
mentioned above, sighted Web users who do not download images will think
they are missing something. Of course "filler" and "spacer" can be
annoying for screen reader users, but they do convey some information.
Finally, I believe I saw on the WAI site that it was OK to use alt=" ",
and recently someone posted a reference to the WAI site that addressed
alt="", but I am not able to find those now. Does anyone have those
references?
Thanks!
Carol
--
Carol Foster, Web Developer
University Information Systems
University of Massachusetts, President's Office
(413) 587-2130
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.umassp.edu/uis/ipg
http://www.umassp.edu/uis/ipg/accessibility
--

From: Paul Bohman
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2001 4:25PM
Subject: Re: alt text subleties
← Previous message | Next message →

First of all, I just wanted to mention that the archives are once again functional.
Now to answer your question (my comments are inline):
> 1. We are starting to use brackets [] around alt text, as is done on
> the Bobby site and some others. This helps a lot in lynx, which runs
> alt text and regular text together in a way that can be very confusing.
> It could be really annoying in screen readers though. In JAWS the
> punctuation can be turned off. Does anyone know if this is a common way
> to use JAWS (with punctuation turned off), or if this can be done in
> other screen readers? How do others handle this apparent conflict
> between lynx and screen readers?

> 2. "spacer" versus alt="" versus alt=" ":
Well, you were right that WebAIM recommends using alt="" (alt equals quote quote). Some people recommend using alt=" " (alt equals quote space quote), but this causes a "tooltip" to popup in Internet Explorer and some other browsers, but of course the tooltip has nothing inside of it. It is just a little yellow box. It looks a little strange. As far as using alt="spacer", I would definitely discourage this practice. If you go with that approach, then pretty soon the screen reader user will be hearing things like "spacer, spacer, left glowing edge, top glowing edge, blue shadow, vertical line top section . . ." and so on. No one wants to hear that. As far as making visual users think that they're missing out on something, I guess I'm just less concerned about that personally. The truth is that they're not missing out on anything. When you designate an image as having an empty alt tag you've essentially told everyone that that image isn't important. If the image is a small one by one pixel clear gif, then it won't matter either way. If the image is larger, then I suppose that a visual person who has the images turned off might wonder what the image was, but if all of the rest of your alt tags are good enough, maybe the user will assume that the image with the empty alt tag is not important.
(It's dangerous to assume anything, I realize, and it's dangerous to expect your users to assume anything, but here is somewhat of a justification: Usually, visual users have the images turned off by choice. If necessary, they can turn them on again. Blind users have no choice. They have to take what the web developer gives them, which is why alt tags are so important in the first place.)
Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM: Web Accessibility in Mind (www.webaim.org)
Center for Persons with Disabilities (www.cpd.usu.edu)
Utah State University (www.usu.edu)

From: Carol Foster
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2001 7:41AM
Subject: Re: alt text subtleties
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks, Paul, for your interesting and helpful reply. This makes me lean toward
using alt=" " for spacers, etc. that are big enough to be seen by sighted users
who don't download images.
I'm still interested in comments on the question of [].
And the archives look great --thanks to everyone who contributed!
Carol
Paul Bohman wrote:
> First of all, I just wanted to mention that the archives are once again
> functional.
>
> Now to answer your question (my comments are inline):
>
> > 1. We are starting to use brackets [] around alt text, as is done on
> > the Bobby site and some others. This helps a lot in lynx, which runs
> > alt text and regular text together in a way that can be very confusing.
> > It could be really annoying in screen readers though. In JAWS the
> > punctuation can be turned off. Does anyone know if this is a common way
> > to use JAWS (with punctuation turned off), or if this can be done in
> > other screen readers? How do others handle this apparent conflict
> > between lynx and screen readers?
>
> > 2. "spacer" versus alt="" versus alt=" ":
>
> Well, you were right that WebAIM recommends using alt="" (alt equals quote
> quote). Some people recommend using alt=" " (alt equals quote space quote),
> but this causes a "tooltip" to popup in Internet Explorer and some other
> browsers, but of course the tooltip has nothing inside of it. It is just a
> little yellow box. It looks a little strange. As far as using alt="spacer",
> I would definitely discourage this practice. If you go with that approach,
> then pretty soon the screen reader user will be hearing things like "spacer,
> spacer, left glowing edge, top glowing edge, blue shadow, vertical line top
> section . . ." and so on. No one wants to hear that. As far as making visual
> users think that they're missing out on something, I guess I'm just less
> concerned about that personally. The truth is that they're not missing out
> on anything. When you designate an image as having an empty alt tag you've
> essentially told everyone that that image isn't important. If the image is a
> small one by one pixel clear gif, then it won't matter either way. If the
> image is larger, then I suppose that a visual person who has the images
> turned off might wonder what the image was, but if all of the rest of your
> alt tags are good enough, maybe the user will assume that the image with the
> empty alt tag is not important.
>
> (It's dangerous to assume anything, I realize, and it's dangerous to expect
> your users to assume anything, but here is somewhat of a justification:
> Usually, visual users have the images turned off by choice. If necessary,
> they can turn them on again. Blind users have no choice. They have to take
> what the web developer gives them, which is why alt tags are so important in
> the first place.)
>
> Paul Bohman
> Technology Coordinator
> WebAIM: Web Accessibility in Mind (www.webaim.org)
> Center for Persons with Disabilities (www.cpd.usu.edu)
> Utah State University (www.usu.edu)
--
Carol Foster, Web Developer
University Information Systems
University of Massachusetts, President's Office
(413) 587-2130
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.umassp.edu/uis/ipg
http://www.umassp.edu/uis/ipg/accessibility
--

From: Paul Bohman
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2001 10:17AM
Subject: Re: alt text subleties
← Previous message | Next message →

> I'm still interested in comments on the question of [].
I don't use brackets with alt tags, and most people in the accessibility field don't either -- not that the popular thing is always the right thing to do, but I think it makes sense to leave them out, at least from the perspective of screen reader rendering. Most screen readers will read the brackets like this:
"Left bracket, products and services, right bracket."
A long list of links can get somewhat tedious when listening to all of those brackets.
If we expand the topic a little beyond alt tags, then there is one place where I have seen brackets used which I don't mind too much: the "D link". (For an explanation of the D link see http://www.webaim.org/howto/graphics2f). For an example of a D link with brackets, see www.corda.com. The reason that I don't mind it here is that a "D" by itself is just a single letter that can look a little lonely, if you know what I mean. Still, I don't really have an strong opinion either way. With or without the brackets, the link still performs its function.
In the end, the brackets on alt tags don't add much of anything to their accessibility, and their presence doesn't really harm anything, except that it takes longer to listen to the links.
Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM: Web Accessibility in Mind (www.webaim.org)
Center for Persons with Disabilities (www.cpd.usu.edu)
Utah State University (www.usu.edu)

From: Jamie Mackay
Date: Tue, Jul 17 2001 4:40PM
Subject: RE: alt text subtleties - D-link excursion
← Previous message | No next message

Just extending Paul's comments about square brackets on 'D' links
(apologies for thread drift).
I have generally used both the longdesc tag and the 'D' tag for image
descriptions; when you use a screen reader that can recognise longdesc
(such as IBM Home Page Reader) then you end up with it reading out two
lots of description links - having square brackets around the 'D' helps
to un-murk this situation (and, of course, stops the dreaded consecutive
links error).
By the way, anyone out there in a position to judge how long it might be
until using 'longdesc' will be enough on its own? At the moment having
to use both is not ideal for anyone and is just the sort of thing to put
off over-worked webmasters having to confront the 'accessibility issue'
for the first time.
Cheers
Jamie Mackay
Ministry for Culture and Heritage
New Zealand
www.mch.govt.nz