E-mail List Archives
Thread: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
Number of posts in this thread: 15 (In chronological order)
From: Keith Parks
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 11:40AM
Subject: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
No previous message | Next message →
Thought this should branch into its own thread (for those who care
about such things)
On Jan 19, 2007, at 9:07 AM, John Foliot - Stanford Online
Accessibility Program wrote:
> * Interesting that you are wrapping image's alt text with [square
> brackets],
> although the "i" I'm not sure about (it is not clearly defined). I
> have
> taken to wrapping all my alt text with [square brackets] as well
> (presumably
> for the same reason you have), but have also taken to "defining"
> what type
> of graphic it is as part of the alt text: Photo, Logo, Icon, etc. The
> little feedback I have received has not been negative, but now that I
> mention it on this list, I would be curious for more feedback...
> It's a
> little something I've been quietly trying. See:http://
> soap.stanford.edu
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.
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.
There's more, but I thought I'd pass the link along, as I found it
rather insightful.
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sdsu.edu
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
----------------------------------------------------------
World Peace through Cascading Style Sheets.
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:00PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Keith Parks
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:40PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
John,
You make some good points.
One thing I forgot to ask, going back to your original reply, was
about the [square brackets] around ALT text. You said you presumed
that the text transcoder added the brackets for the same reason as
you do. What's that reason?
And to expand on one area of thought...
On Jan 19, 2007, at 2:48 PM, John Foliot - Stanford Online
Accessibility Program wrote:
> 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.
One thing I've struggled with (well, at least had second thought
about) is how far to "editorialize" in ALT text, when I started
trying to have the ALT text describe the *purpose* as well as the
appearance of an image.
For instance, since we're both in the edu realm, you've probably
dealt with many of the "faculty together with a student" photos. A
descriptive ALT text could be "Photo: a student talking with a
faculty member." But thinking about *why* the photo is there, what it
is really supposed to do is say "Students enjoy personal interaction
with faculty members." That's the story that the picture is supposed
to tell. Without having to actually *say* it in the copy.
So is it valid to say that in the ALT text? Aside from the question
of precisely how to word it, does that go beyond the "text
equivalent" function?
Same for simple campus architectural shots. Rather than "photo: the
Library building", what I *hope* the photo is saying is more like
"It's another beautiful day in San Diego... the sky is blue, the palm
trees are swaying, and students are enjoying our nice climate." etc.
(pictures being worth 1000 words, and all.)
And how about things like ethnicity? We try hard to have our
publications reflect the diversity of our campus (how's *that* for a
canned phrase? ;^) Yet it would seem awfully weird to have and ALT
tag of "A caucasian female student and a hispanic male student talk
with an asian female instructor." If that's important "content" of
the image, shouldn't it be part of the description?
I haven't gone that far yet, but I've thought about it.
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sdsu.edu
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
----------------------------------------------------------
World Peace through Cascading Style Sheets.
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 5:40PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
Keith Parks wrote:
> John,
>
> One thing I forgot to ask, going back to your original reply, was
> about the [square brackets] around ALT text. You said you presumed
> that the text transcoder added the brackets for the same reason as
> you do. What's that reason?
One of the simple test I use to illustrate to people about "screen readers"
is to visit a site (their site, my site?) using Lynx. The web is such a
powerful visual medium for so many people that "seeing" what visually
impaired people get (raw, hopefully semantically formatted text) to me is
almost more useful than me trying to demo a screen reader - for one, I am a
punter in that area (as any experienced screen reader user will attest,
learning the software is a huge learning curve). Seeing text only, without
the benefit of style or images kinda brings it home, graphically. Weird
perhaps, but it seems to work.
A common page, and one that I demo'd often was the Bio, or Profile page.
These semi-standard pages often look like this:
<h1>John Foliot</h1>
<p><img src="path to file" alt="John Foliot"> John has been at Stanford
since... </p>
Now, viewing this in Lynx, you get:
John Foliot
John Foliot John has been at Stanford since...
...which "reads" funny. Contrast that with my modified alt text 'norm':
John Foliot
[Photo - John Foliot] John has been at Stanford since...
Now, this is still pretty visual, as depending on the verbosity settings,
often the square brackets are ignored by the screen reader, but since
Universal Accessibility is more than just web pages for blind people
<grin>... And by adding the bit of info that it is a Photo, most screen
readers will now voice "Image: Photo <slight pause> John Foliot <pause> John
has been..."
I tried it out on a few daily AT users, and they all were "cool" with it...
Not a roaring hurrah, but subtle and useful was the general feedback I got
(granted, it was a small pool of users)
Getting back to the initial question, I thus presume that Phil's readable
interface (which includes square brackets around the alt text) is for
essentially the same reason - the visual display - it "breaks out" the alt
text from other onscreen text.
>
> One thing I've struggled with (well, at least had second thought
> about) is how far to "editorialize" in ALT text, when I started
> trying to have the ALT text describe the *purpose* as well as the
> appearance of an image.
>
> For instance, since we're both in the edu realm, you've probably
> dealt with many of the "faculty together with a student" photos. A
> descriptive ALT text could be "Photo: a student talking with a
> faculty member." But thinking about *why* the photo is there, what it
> is really supposed to do is say "Students enjoy personal interaction
> with faculty members." That's the story that the picture is supposed
> to tell. Without having to actually *say* it in the copy.
Well, here, you and I agree, although others may not always. But I, like
you, have always asked "what is the *reason* for the photo, what is the
message it is intending to send", and then try and incorporate it into the
alt text. It's not always easy to do so succinctly.
>
> So is it valid to say that in the ALT text? Aside from the question
> of precisely how to word it, does that go beyond the "text
> equivalent" function?
Well, I would argue that in many ways, by providing the editorial "insight"
you *are* providing the "equivalent". Telling the user that it is a photo
of a building really has no practical use does it? Saying that it is the
Chancellor's Office, and that it is an example of the California Mission
style *is* of use, as it then "paints the picture" for the user.
>
> Same for simple campus architectural shots. Rather than "photo: the
> Library building", what I *hope* the photo is saying is more like
> "It's another beautiful day in San Diego... the sky is blue, the palm
> trees are swaying, and students are enjoying our nice climate." etc.
> (pictures being worth 1000 words, and all.)
Right, but you also need to be careful to not add *too much* info in your
alternative text. If the idea of blue sky and swaying palm trees is
integral to the message, it should be in the actual text - this is where
creative writing comes into play. For above, an alt text of "[Photo -
Students lounging outside the library building, enjoying our typical
temperate climate]" gives a sense of purpose to the photo, without it being
those 1,000 words.
>
> And how about things like ethnicity? We try hard to have our
> publications reflect the diversity of our campus (how's *that* for a
> canned phrase? ;^) Yet it would seem awfully weird to have and ALT
> tag of "A caucasian female student and a hispanic male student talk
> with an asian female instructor." If that's important "content" of
> the image, shouldn't it be part of the description?
Well... This is a loaded question, as it also calls into play political
correctness - a sensitive issue. My thoughts here are that unless the
container page/site is specifically about racial diversity or similar, I
personally would probably side-step the issue. (Do you also feature photos
of students/faculty in wheel chairs, with assistive dogs, etc.?) If it is
germane to identify a person by an attribute (ethnicity, disability, etc.),
then it needs to be handled with sensitivity, and I would consult heavily on
the appropriateness of any text, but that's just conservative ol' me
talking... I suppose if it were necessary to "identify", I would also seek
to personalize the characters, and include their "difference" into the text
that way: [Photo - Wheelchair bound Keith successfully manages to navigate
the barrier free campus], [Photo - Claudius Smith, an African-American, and
Cindy Lopez, a Mexican-American discuss racial diversity issues on campus].
In other words, identify their "difference" only if it completes the story.
All just opinion of course...
JF
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sat, Jan 20 2007 7:30PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program wrote:
> Well, here, you and I agree, although others may not always. But I, like
> you, have always asked "what is the *reason* for the photo, what is the
> message it is intending to send", and then try and incorporate it into the
> alt text.
If the reason is pure eye candy to evoke a certain feel/attitude (e.g.
smily teacher to show that it's a friendly environment), can the purpose
not also be reflected in the way the main copy is written, the tone of
voice, choice of words, etc? Would this then not make the ALT redundant,
as the same information is conveyed already?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
From: Phil Teare
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 7:50AM
Subject: Re: VIKI - text transcodeing, and beyond
← Previous message | Next message →
Right - the press
thing<http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&;storyID=2007-01-19T161023Z_01_L1851821_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-BRITAIN-TOOLBAR.XML>has
died down a little:
VIKI should be running reasonably well on a good connection (even in the
states - I'd hope, and yes we do US accents too).
http://81.149.150.32:8080/loband/
Please send feedback straight to me phil.a.teareATgooglemail.com
Many thanks.
--
Phil Teare,
Technical Director & Lead Developer,
http://www.talklets.com from Textic Ltd.
(44) [0] 77 68479904
From: Keith Parks
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 10:10AM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
On Jan 19, 2007, at 4:28 PM, John Foliot - Stanford Online
Accessibility Program wrote:
> Now, viewing this in Lynx, you get:
>
> John Foliot
> John Foliot John has been at Stanford since...
>
> ...which "reads" funny. Contrast that with my modified alt text
> 'norm':
>
> John Foliot
> [Photo - John Foliot] John has been at Stanford since...
Ah, yes.
This type of thing was one of my objections to the LIFT transcoder,
when I saw a demo of that a while back. It extracted the ALT text
fine, but that text *out of context* was often quite confusing. But
the brackets plus the additional description works nicely.
[snip...]
>>
>> And how about things like ethnicity? [snip]
>
> Well... This is a loaded question, [snip...]
>
> All just opinion of course...
I appreciate your thoughts.
On Jan 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> If the reason is pure eye candy to evoke a certain feel/attitude (e.g.
> smily teacher to show that it's a friendly environment), can the
> purpose
> not also be reflected in the way the main copy is written, the tone of
> voice, choice of words, etc? Would this then not make the ALT
> redundant,
> as the same information is conveyed already?
That's the nice thing about pictures, to be able to *say* things,
without "saying" them. I design mostly for a college-aged audience,
and I'm sure there are ways to *write* something "hip" or "casual",
or "academic" when necessary, but communicating those styles through
images seems a clearer way to go.
(Besides, haven't you heard, nobody *reads* the copy anymore anyway. ;^)
For me, the same applies to the "design" elements of a site (color,
style, graphics) and their ability also to evoke feelings/attitudes,
all of which is lost when the site is rendered as text-only, whether
it's spoken text or on-screen text.
Back in the early style sheet days, when the mantra to "separate
content from presentation" was first spreading, I would argue with
people that sometimes that couldn't be done, that the presentation
*was* an integral part of the content of a site. (What's the text
equivalent of "bright colors" vs. "muted colors"?) And you could take
the same content (words, and maybe even pictures) and wrap it in 2
different presentation, and create quite different experiences for
the regular visitor.
Gee, I'm really veering off topic, aren't I. Just Monday morning
venting. Sorry. :^(
Keith
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sdsu.edu
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
----------------------------------------------------------
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, served with a side of
slaw.
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 10:20AM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program wrote:
>
>> Well, here, you and I agree, although others may not always. But I,
>> like you, have always asked "what is the *reason* for the photo, what
>> is the message it is intending to send", and then try and incorporate
>> it into the alt text.
>
> If the reason is pure eye candy to evoke a certain feel/attitude (e.g.
> smily teacher to show that it's a friendly environment), can the
> purpose not also be reflected in the way the main copy is written,
> the tone of voice, choice of words, etc? Would this then not make the
> ALT redundant, as the same information is conveyed already?
Then why bother with the image at all? Evocation of a mood is a subtle
thing, but I posit that even the visually impaired can appreciate the
subtleties of mood (feel/attitude). To *not* offer the equivalent, is to
me, doing them an injustice: surely Patrick you are not suggesting that 60%
of all images on the web today (used to establish mood) should simply have
alt=""?
Why not: <img src="path" alt="[Photo - Students enjoying the relaxed
teaching style of Professor Jones]" />
Your main point of ensuring that the supporting text also supports the tone,
mood or feel is 100%, but if the copy-writer wants an image there to support
that mood, then the alternative text should do so as well.
Just my $0.02
JF
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 11:20AM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program wrote:
> Then why bother with the image at all?
Because the web is still, for the majority of users, a visual medium.
Do you offer alternatives for the choice of colour of your background or
links? No? Then why bother with colour at all? Same reason.
> To *not* offer the equivalent, is to
> me, doing them an injustice:
Same for colour, choice of typeface, layout, etc? They all serve to set
the mood...
> surely Patrick you are not suggesting that 60%
> of all images on the web today (used to establish mood) should simply have
> alt=""?
No, I'd suggest sticking them in via CSS ;-)
As ever in the discussion on alt, this is very much dependent on
context. And - as I already remember arguing with Joe Clark ages ago
when he was putting together his canonical reference for when a PDF is
appropriate - I'm after all those images that are not there to
illustrate specific things that could be classed as content themselves,
but those wonderfully generic "man with laptop", "businessmen shaking
hands" cr*p that abounds in corporate design.
> Why not: <img src="path" alt="[Photo - Students enjoying the relaxed
> teaching style of Professor Jones]" />
If the main copy already has text along the lines of "Professor Jones'
teaching style is relaxed, and every year students comment on how
enjoyable his lectures are", then it's pure duplication. All this would
say to me is: look, we've got photographic evidence!
As mentioned above, this also depends on the context of the page/image.
I'm crusading against the purely "visual fluff" imagery. If your image
above was in a generic page about teaching at an institution (rather
than a page specifically for Prof Jones), then it probably falls more
under content.
> Your main point of ensuring that the supporting text also supports the tone,
> mood or feel is 100%, but if the copy-writer wants an image there to support
> that mood, then the alternative text should do so as well.
It's not the copywriter that wants it there, it's the designer (who
will, more often than not, stick some bland image from an imagebank in
there).
--
Patrick H. Lauke
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 12:20PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program wrote:
>
>> Then why bother with the image at all?
>
> Because the web is still, for the majority of users, a visual medium.
> Do you offer alternatives for the choice of colour of your background
> or links? No? Then why bother with colour at all? Same reason.
>
>> To *not* offer the equivalent, is to
>> me, doing them an injustice:
>
> Same for colour, choice of typeface, layout, etc? They all serve to
> set
> the mood...
Except... If done correctly (via CSS), all of these colour/typeface/layout
choices can be modified by the end user to adjust to the end user's needs
and expectations. So while we may set out to create a mood through visual
design, the end user can changes those choices at whim. However, graphical
elements embedded into a page differ from CSS styles significantly, and
IMHO, should not be grouped into the same category. The expression, "A
picture is worth a thousand words" comes to mind...
>
>> surely Patrick you are not suggesting that 60%
>> of all images on the web today (used to establish mood) should simply
>> have alt=""?
>
> No, I'd suggest sticking them in via CSS ;-)
Extraneous flourishes et al. I agree with. A photograph of a teacher in a
classroom - sorry, that is an actual photo, included for a reason (even if
to some it may be trivial).
>
> As ever in the discussion on alt, this is very much dependent on
> context. And - as I already remember arguing with Joe Clark ages ago
> when he was putting together his canonical reference for when a PDF is
> appropriate - I'm after all those images that are not there to
> illustrate specific things that could be classed as content
> themselves,
> but those wonderfully generic "man with laptop", "businessmen shaking
> hands" cr*p that abounds in corporate design.
Comments aside regarding stock photography, those generic "smiling
businessman" photos, (or the now infamous "two shaking hands") reinforce the
copy. Yes, it may be visual fluff to you, but it is there non-the-less, and
to not acknowledge it is to apply a different standard to those who do not
"see" the image. This comes back to one of the comments I made earlier -
some argue that the ALT text should be nothing but "factual data": alt="two
men handshaking", whereas I have always used the "why it there?" rule, and
have expanded on the alt text to include some context: alt="[Photo - a
handshake: we are committed to ensuring your satisfaction]"
>
>> Why not: <img src="path" alt="[Photo - Students enjoying the relaxed
>> teaching style of Professor Jones]" />
>
> If the main copy already has text along the lines of "Professor Jones'
> teaching style is relaxed, and every year students comment on how
> enjoyable his lectures are", then it's pure duplication. All this
> would
> say to me is: look, we've got photographic evidence!
OK, and??? Why would you indicate this to a visual user, and neglect to
inform a non-visual user (or simply someone who has disabled images for a
specific reason)? The fact that you are illustrating "...we've got
photographic evidence" is in itself an important statement don't you think?
Why should we, as enablers, also decide what some users should and should
not get? While the role of "editor" is somewhat inherent in what we do
(witness my alt text above), I don't think we should be deciding what is
appropriate or not for any user; rather I think we should be striving to
ensure that the spirit of the original content author is respected, and
conveyed as completely and truthfully as possible to all users.
>
> As mentioned above, this also depends on the context of the
> page/image.
> I'm crusading against the purely "visual fluff" imagery. If your image
> above was in a generic page about teaching at an institution (rather
> than a page specifically for Prof Jones), then it probably falls more
> under content.
I understand the point you are advocating, and I think we can agree on the
idea of context; however I disagree on the general thrust of your argument
that we as developers/enablers start to apply filters to the content. If a
"designer" chooses to use some generic image-bank fluff, savvy users of all
stripes will "know" what that generic photo "means", and will apply their
own internal filters to weigh the importance of the image. I do not think
it is our role to be arbitrator in this regard to those users who may not
"see" the image - we should be more "reporters" than "editors" in this case.
The "functional equivalent" argument to me applies both ways - we offer up
both the good and the not-so-good equally.
>
>> Your main point of ensuring that the supporting text also supports
>> the tone, mood or feel is 100%, but if the copy-writer wants an image
>> there to support that mood, then the alternative text should do so as
>> well.
>
> It's not the copywriter that wants it there, it's the designer (who
> will, more often than not, stick some bland image from an imagebank in
> there).
And that too sends a message.
JF
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 12:30PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Because the web is still, for the majority of users, a visual medium.
> Do you offer alternatives for the choice of colour of your
> background or links? No? Then why bother with colour at all?
> Same reason.
I know what you mean, but from talking to people using screen readers, I would go with including an alt if for no other reason than so they know it is there. If they talk to someone about the site, then the playing field is more level, and the experience more equivalent.
With regards to the square brackets, surely this is something that should be left upto the user agent?
I've added things like "Portrait of " when applicable, and I've added full stops at the end to make alts read better, but square brackets? I believe (and Léonie will elbow me if I'm wrong) that square brackets aren't read by Jaws on default settings, and other UAs may add them or something similar already.
I guess I just feel rather uncomfortable adding something to the content that may be a passing phase (like alt="*" thankfully was). If it is a good idea, the UAs may start adding it...
Still, I do find screen reader's habit of reading images as part of the document flow rather unintuitive (i.e. without pause unless you use punctuation).
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 12:40PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program wrote:
> This comes back to one of the comments I made earlier -
> some argue that the ALT text should be nothing but "factual data": alt="two
> men handshaking", whereas I have always used the "why it there?" rule, and
> have expanded on the alt text to include some context: alt="[Photo - a
> handshake: we are committed to ensuring your satisfaction]"
Which brings me back to my original assertion: if that is already
written out in the copy, I see it as duplication. For a sighted user, it
conveys the same meaning in two different ways; for a screen reader
user, it conveys it in a single way. Nonetheless, I argue that the
meaning of the page is not lost with an empty alt on the fluff image.
> OK, and??? Why would you indicate this to a visual user, and neglect to
> inform a non-visual user (or simply someone who has disabled images for a
> specific reason)? The fact that you are illustrating "...we've got
> photographic evidence" is in itself an important statement don't you think?
Nope.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter then.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 12:50PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> With regards to the square brackets, surely this is something that
> should be left upto the user agent?
>
> I've added things like "Portrait of " when applicable, and I've added
> full stops at the end to make alts read better, but square brackets?
> I believe (and Léonie will elbow me if I'm wrong) that square
> brackets aren't read by Jaws on default settings, and other UAs may
> add them or something similar already.
Alastair, you are correct - under default setting JAWS (and if I remember
correctly, WindowEyes as well) do not read aloud the square brackets, which
is actually one of the reasons why I use them.
I have not seen any other UA that actually "separates" alt text from
standard text (that is, until I saw Phil's VIKI rendering), and as you have
noted, this can occasionally make ALT text 'read funny', not only for screen
readers, but for other text-only UAs. As I mentioned earlier, my use of the
square bracket then is mostly an experiment (which has started to become
part of my regular development flow), to try and address this observation.
It does not add significantly to any user "load", and in certain
circumstances seems to improve the overall user experience. I have not had
any negative feedback (but I've not had any positive either, so I guess the
jury is still out).
>
> I guess I just feel rather uncomfortable adding something to the
> content that may be a passing phase (like alt="*" thankfully was). If
> it is a good idea, the UAs may start adding it...
Hmmm... And so how do we try and affect this? Is it a good idea? (I like to
think so, but that's me). If it *is* a good idea, how do we spread the
word?
>
> Still, I do find screen reader's habit of reading images as part of
> the document flow rather unintuitive (i.e. without pause unless you
> use punctuation).
Right, and to be clear, the square brackets do nothing to change that,
although the dash after the "descriptor" [Photo - foo] does add a slight
pause as I recall. My primary reason for adding square brackets though are
not for screen-readers, but rather text-only UAs.
JF
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 1:00PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
> Which brings me back to my original assertion: if that is already
> written out in the copy, I see it as duplication. For a sighted user,
> it conveys the same meaning in two different ways; for a screen reader
> user, it conveys it in a single way.
But it need not, and that's the point. Functional equivalency here allows
us to re-enforce the concept in a separate way for the screen reader user
just as the image does for the sighted user.
> Nonetheless, I argue that the
> meaning of the page is not lost with an empty alt on the fluff image.
Not lost, but not the same either...
>
>> The fact that you are illustrating
>> "...we've got photographic evidence" is in itself an important
>> statement don't you think?
>
> Nope.
>
> But we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter then.
And we can do that Patrick <smile>.
Cheers!
JF
From: Keith Parks
Date: Mon, Jan 22 2007 1:10PM
Subject: Re: Alt text (was VIKI - text transcodeing)
← Previous message | No next message
On Jan 22, 2007, at 11:39 AM, John Foliot - Stanford Online
Accessibility Program wrote:
>>
>> I guess I just feel rather uncomfortable adding something to the
>> content that may be a passing phase (like alt="*" thankfully was). If
>> it is a good idea, the UAs may start adding it...
>
> Hmmm... And so how do we try and affect this? Is it a good idea?
> (I like to
> think so, but that's me). If it *is* a good idea, how do we spread
> the
> word?
Too bad you can't use the pause-before and pause-after aural css
rules on the ALT content. But then you can't apply a rule to an
attribute of an element.
Unless you just applied it to all images, which would then create a
pause before and after their ALT text.
img { pause: 20ms }
Though maybe an extra-long pause before an image with a null alt tag.
And also it doesn't address true text-only browsers.
Just a thought,
Keith
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sdsu.edu
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
----------------------------------------------------------
(Objects on your screen may be closer than they appear)