E-mail List Archives
Thread: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)
From: Jackson, Derek
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2018 3:25PM
Subject: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
No previous message | Next message →
Hello,
Often times we must process content that is not ours and which is not accessible. We do our best to improve the documents by adding structure and metadata but we are not permitted to add editorial content, and alt-text is considered editorial content. We have an automated process that gives images an alt attribute but leaves the value blank if no alt-text is provided. The issue is that this is then seen as a presentational image and simply ignored by most Assistive Technology and no image is announced at all. Does anyone have any advice or experience with missing alt-text and if it is "better" to leave the attribute blank (i.e. alt="") or to omit it entirely from the element when alt text is not provided, or does it even make a difference (e.g. both are so insufficient it is inconsequential, both are equally useless)? Is it useful to know that there is a relevant image in the content even if it is not accessible?
I hate to ask this question but it is a reality we are sometimes confronted with and hopefully we can do something minimize the affect of the omission a little bit.
Thank you!
Derek
From: L Snider
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2018 3:45PM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Derek,
I may have missed it, but is this a web page? Document? Other?
Cheers
Lisa
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Jackson, Derek <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> Often times we must process content that is not ours and which is not
> accessible. We do our best to improve the documents by adding structure and
> metadata but we are not permitted to add editorial content, and alt-text is
> considered editorial content. We have an automated process that gives
> images an alt attribute but leaves the value blank if no alt-text is
> provided. The issue is that this is then seen as a presentational image and
> simply ignored by most Assistive Technology and no image is announced at
> all. Does anyone have any advice or experience with missing alt-text and if
> it is "better" to leave the attribute blank (i.e. alt="") or to omit it
> entirely from the element when alt text is not provided, or does it even
> make a difference (e.g. both are so insufficient it is inconsequential,
> both are equally useless)? Is it useful to know that there is a relevant
> image in the content even if it is not accessible?
>
>
> I hate to ask this question but it is a reality we are sometimes
> confronted with and hopefully we can do something minimize the affect of
> the omission a little bit.
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Derek
>
>
>
>
> > > > >
From: L Snider
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2018 3:46PM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | Next message →
Oops, you said documents...sorry, what I meant is this a PDF? Word? Other?
Cheers
Lisa
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:45 PM, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Derek,
>
> I may have missed it, but is this a web page? Document? Other?
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Jackson, Derek <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> Often times we must process content that is not ours and which is not
>> accessible. We do our best to improve the documents by adding structure and
>> metadata but we are not permitted to add editorial content, and alt-text is
>> considered editorial content. We have an automated process that gives
>> images an alt attribute but leaves the value blank if no alt-text is
>> provided. The issue is that this is then seen as a presentational image and
>> simply ignored by most Assistive Technology and no image is announced at
>> all. Does anyone have any advice or experience with missing alt-text and if
>> it is "better" to leave the attribute blank (i.e. alt="") or to omit it
>> entirely from the element when alt text is not provided, or does it even
>> make a difference (e.g. both are so insufficient it is inconsequential,
>> both are equally useless)? Is it useful to know that there is a relevant
>> image in the content even if it is not accessible?
>>
>>
>> I hate to ask this question but it is a reality we are sometimes
>> confronted with and hopefully we can do something minimize the affect of
>> the omission a little bit.
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Derek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>
From: Jackson, Derek
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2018 8:56PM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | Next message →
Sorry for the confusion but it could be either/both. We are producing a PDF and an HTML version.
Best!
Derek
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 5:46:04 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
Oops, you said documents...sorry, what I meant is this a PDF? Word? Other?
Cheers
Lisa
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:45 PM, L Snider < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Derek,
>
> I may have missed it, but is this a web page? Document? Other?
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Jackson, Derek <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> Often times we must process content that is not ours and which is not
>> accessible. We do our best to improve the documents by adding structure and
>> metadata but we are not permitted to add editorial content, and alt-text is
>> considered editorial content. We have an automated process that gives
>> images an alt attribute but leaves the value blank if no alt-text is
>> provided. The issue is that this is then seen as a presentational image and
>> simply ignored by most Assistive Technology and no image is announced at
>> all. Does anyone have any advice or experience with missing alt-text and if
>> it is "better" to leave the attribute blank (i.e. alt="") or to omit it
>> entirely from the element when alt text is not provided, or does it even
>> make a difference (e.g. both are so insufficient it is inconsequential,
>> both are equally useless)? Is it useful to know that there is a relevant
>> image in the content even if it is not accessible?
>>
>>
>> I hate to ask this question but it is a reality we are sometimes
>> confronted with and hopefully we can do something minimize the affect of
>> the omission a little bit.
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Derek
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>
From: glen walker
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2018 1:31AM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | Next message →
Are the images ever decorative? If not, then the alt text should never be
omitted or empty. If the content provider does not specify an alt text,
then you can provide a "image description not available" type of alt text.
That obviously doesn't help the end user with the image, but at least they
know the image is there and can follow up on it.
If images *can* be decorative and alt text is not provided, then you should
have an empty alt text. You should never leave the alt attribute off
unless you have aria-hidden="true". It's the content providers fault if
they had an image that has meaning but didn't provide that meaning. Their
image will be ignored.
From: Isabel Holdsworth
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2018 4:59AM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | Next message →
I like this "image description not available" approach: it would spur
grumpy users like me on to contact the provider to ask why they can't
be bothered to add a simple description :-)
On 25/07/2018, glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Are the images ever decorative? If not, then the alt text should never be
> omitted or empty. If the content provider does not specify an alt text,
> then you can provide a "image description not available" type of alt text.
> That obviously doesn't help the end user with the image, but at least they
> know the image is there and can follow up on it.
>
> If images *can* be decorative and alt text is not provided, then you should
> have an empty alt text. You should never leave the alt attribute off
> unless you have aria-hidden="true". It's the content providers fault if
> they had an image that has meaning but didn't provide that meaning. Their
> image will be ignored.
> > > > >
From: Jackson, Derek
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2018 7:27AM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you all for your help. I think we will go the "image description not available" route. Although not necessarily more accessible it is more honest to me.
Thanks again!
Derek
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Isabel Holdsworth < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:59:40 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
I like this "image description not available" approach: it would spur
grumpy users like me on to contact the provider to ask why they can't
be bothered to add a simple description :-)
On 25/07/2018, glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Are the images ever decorative? If not, then the alt text should never be
> omitted or empty. If the content provider does not specify an alt text,
> then you can provide a "image description not available" type of alt text.
> That obviously doesn't help the end user with the image, but at least they
> know the image is there and can follow up on it.
>
> If images *can* be decorative and alt text is not provided, then you should
> have an empty alt text. You should never leave the alt attribute off
> unless you have aria-hidden="true". It's the content providers fault if
> they had an image that has meaning but didn't provide that meaning. Their
> image will be ignored.
> > > > >
From: Jeremy Echols
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2018 1:44PM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | Next message →
Are the images' descriptions contained in the surrounding context? You don't have to have a value in the alt attribute to satisfy the need for alternative text. See example two under the webaim alt text page's context discussion: https://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/#context
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Jackson, Derek < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:27 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
Thank you all for your help. I think we will go the "image description not available" route. Although not necessarily more accessible it is more honest to me.
Thanks again!
Derek
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Isabel Holdsworth < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 6:59:40 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
I like this "image description not available" approach: it would spur
grumpy users like me on to contact the provider to ask why they can't
be bothered to add a simple description :-)
On 25/07/2018, glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Are the images ever decorative? If not, then the alt text should never be
> omitted or empty. If the content provider does not specify an alt text,
> then you can provide a "image description not available" type of alt text.
> That obviously doesn't help the end user with the image, but at least they
> know the image is there and can follow up on it.
>
> If images *can* be decorative and alt text is not provided, then you should
> have an empty alt text. You should never leave the alt attribute off
> unless you have aria-hidden="true". It's the content providers fault if
> they had an image that has meaning but didn't provide that meaning. Their
> image will be ignored.
> > > > >
From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2018 2:20PM
Subject: Re: no alt-text: lesser of two evils?
← Previous message | No next message
Correct, which is why I asked whether the images can be decorative or not.
If they can never be decorative, then a value for alt should always be
provided, even if it's "image description not available", because that
would indicate that the content provider missed something and can hopefully
be corrected.
If the image *can* be decorative, as in your example 2 link, then an empty
alt is fine.
We don't really have enough information about the situation to make a
definitive suggestion on whether to always have (non-empty) alt text or if
empty alt text is acceptable.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Jeremy Echols < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Are the images' descriptions contained in the surrounding context? You
> don't have to have a value in the alt attribute to satisfy the need for
> alternative text. See example two under the webaim alt text page's context
> discussion: https://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/#context