E-mail List Archives

Thread: Question about image in the alt attribute

for

Number of posts in this thread: 31 (In chronological order)

From: Erica Ellis
Date: Wed, Jul 30 2014 12:07PM
Subject: Question about image in the alt attribute
No previous message | Next message →

Subject: Question about image in the alt attribute

Hi there,

I have a question about images in my web based training. I am creating a training on Sexual Misconduct in Schools. The pictures that are on each slide don't add to the content but exist to beautify the slide and take up some of the white space. For example: on a slide that gives the definition of Sexual Misconduct, I might have a picture of two students posing outside of a school building. I have the option to make these images invisible to screen readers. What is preferred when images do not directly support the content and in the case of online training, do not add instructional value?

Should I take the images or make them invisible to screen readers?

Thanks so much for your help!

Erica Ellis
E-learning Instructional Designer
United Educators | Prevention and Protection for Education
7700 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20814
(240) 482-4710
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
www.UE.org<;http://www.ue.org/>; | EduRiskSolutions.org<http://www.edurisksolutions.org/>;
Stay connected to UE: LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/united-educators_2>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/UnitedEducators>, and YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6GVx81dwln6j13rHaagWFQ>;

From: Thomas McKeithan II
Date: Wed, Jul 30 2014 12:18PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

If the images are for decretative purposes, I'd not include them in the tab order, but if they are related to content, you should have an alt tag.

Respectfully,
Thomas Lee McKeithan II
QSSI
http://www.qssinc.com
508 SME, SSQA Solutions Center
10480 Little Patuxent Pkwy , Suite 350
Columbia , MD 21044
(301 )977-7884 x1058 (Work)
(202) 276-6437 (Cell)
 

This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Erica Ellis
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:07 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Question about image in the alt attribute

Subject: Question about image in the alt attribute

Hi there,

I have a question about images in my web based training. I am creating a training on Sexual Misconduct in Schools. The pictures that are on each slide don't add to the content but exist to beautify the slide and take up some of the white space. For example: on a slide that gives the definition of Sexual Misconduct, I might have a picture of two students posing outside of a school building. I have the option to make these images invisible to screen readers. What is preferred when images do not directly support the content and in the case of online training, do not add instructional value?

Should I take the images or make them invisible to screen readers?

Thanks so much for your help!

Erica Ellis
E-learning Instructional Designer
United Educators | Prevention and Protection for Education
7700 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20814
(240) 482-4710
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
www.UE.org<;http://www.ue.org/>; | EduRiskSolutions.org<http://www.edurisksolutions.org/>;
Stay connected to UE: LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/united-educators_2>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/UnitedEducators>, and YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6GVx81dwln6j13rHaagWFQ>;

This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety.

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Jul 30 2014 1:24PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

2014-07-30 21:07, Erica Ellis wrote:

> I have a question about images in my web based training. I am
> creating a training on Sexual Misconduct in Schools. The pictures
> that are on each slide don't add to the content but exist to beautify
> the slide and take up some of the white space. For example: on a
> slide that gives the definition of Sexual Misconduct, I might have a
> picture of two students posing outside of a school building. I have
> the option to make these images invisible to screen readers. What is
> preferred when images do not directly support the content and in the
> case of online training, do not add instructional value?

WCAG 2.0 Guideline 1.1 contains the following advice:
"If non-text content is pure decoration, is used only for visual
formatting, or is not presented to users, then it is implemented in a
way that it can be ignored by assistive technology."
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv

This means that you should use an alt attribute with an empty value,
alt="", if the image is decoration.

The concept of decoration is debatable, and in your case, the image
might have the effect of orienting the user, reminding about the topic
somehow. What I mean is that it is not "pure decoration" in the same
sense as an abstract ornament or arbitrary decorative image, such as a
picture of a butterfly in a context that has absolutely nothing to do
with butterflies.

But to get back to reality, what could you possibly use as alternative
text for an "orienting" or "topical" image? Words that describe what the
images contain would probably disorient rather than help. Well, you
might consider some background music that somehow relates to the topic,
but that's not something you can do with an alt attribute and should be
an issue considered on its own.

Yucca

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Wed, Jul 30 2014 8:28PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Please keep in mind that WCAG's standards/guidelines for Alt-text aren't
only for those who are fully blind. Partially-sighted and low-vision users
rely on Alt-text, also. People with various dyslexia as well as
autism/Asperger's also benefit from Alt-text on graphics because it can help
reinforce their perception of the graphic.

From my personal experience with close friends and family members with
varying degrees of visual disabilities, I've often been asked "what's this
picture of?" They could detect that a photo was in the document but could
only see shapes or a fuzzy rendition of it. Alt-text, even simple wording
such as "High-school age girl and boy holding hands outside a school" would
go a long way to help this group of AT users perceive the graphic.

To call this type of graphic decorative is a misnomer. It has much more
purpose than just unnecessary decoration. Yes, it can "orient" the reader or
reinforce the topic, but most importantly it's a psychological draw for
sighted users and pictures with human or animal faces are the biggest draws,
regardless of the material's topic. Babies, seductive women, and cute animal
faces are the top 3 draws.

In your case (web-based training where graphics aren't critical to the
material), I suggest to take an inclusive approach and accommodate the
broadest range of users possible by including Alt-text on these graphics,
but keeping it very short, minimalist.

And if necessary, hire a professional editor to write the Alt-text,
preferably one schooled in accessibility guidelines.

-Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
Taka a Sec. 508 Class in 2014 - www.Pubcom.com/classes

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Jul 30 2014 10:56PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

2014-07-31 5:28, Chagnon | PubCom wrote:

> Please keep in mind that WCAG's standards/guidelines for Alt-text aren't
> only for those who are fully blind. Partially-sighted and low-vision users
> rely on Alt-text, also. People with various dyslexia as well as
> autism/Asperger's also benefit from Alt-text on graphics because it can help
> reinforce their perception of the graphic.

That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the
image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.

> From my personal experience with close friends and family members with
> varying degrees of visual disabilities, I've often been asked "what's this
> picture of?" They could detect that a photo was in the document but could
> only see shapes or a fuzzy rendition of it. Alt-text, even simple wording
> such as "High-school age girl and boy holding hands outside a school" would
> go a long way to help this group of AT users perceive the graphic.

And it would be meaningless and disturbing when the image is not seen at
all, which is when the alt text is to be presented. Think about the
presentation of the page in speech, or in Braille, or graphically with
image loading disabled.

The title attribute can be used to provide a *description* or other
advisory title for an image. It is meant to be available (optionally)
when the image *is* displayed.

Yucca

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 1:56AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.

I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.

Olaf

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 2:30AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:

> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>
> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.

"For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this
attribute specifies alternate text."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt

"alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt

The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an
image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how
relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.

Yucca

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 2:43AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not about disabilities of user agents.

Olaf


On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>
>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>
>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.
>
> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>
> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>
> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.
>
> Yucca
>
> > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 2:54AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

The alt attribute maps to the accessible name property in accessibility APIs. Thus any assistive technology can and many do convey the presence of the image and the text alternative to users (who may be blind, partially sighted or have Cognitive impairments).

Sent from my iPhone

> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>
>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>
>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.
>
> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>
> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>
> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.
>
> Yucca
>
> > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 3:49AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Olaf

This doesn't need to be fixed in WCAG or HTML as it is not a constraint
Refer to example scenarios where alt text may be useful http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#examples-of-scenarios-where-users-benefit-from-text-alternatives-for-images

> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:43, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not about disabilities of user agents.
>
> Olaf
>
>
>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>
>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>>
>>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.
>>
>> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text."
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>
>> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>>
>> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.
>>
>> Yucca
>>
>> >> >> >
> > >

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 3:59AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Steve,

a statement like "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text. " needs to be fixed from my point of view, it needs to become more user centric. As an example just envision an ordinary PDF viewer. It could be used by a low vision person, but that person [heavily using magnification to read the text in it] might find it difficult to take in the overall appearance of an image. A tooltip could be provided (even in text form! but also via text to speech or other means) to make it easier/quicker/feasible for that person to take in the image.

This implies two important aspects:
- the person is using its sight (albeit via magnification)
- on top of that that person is making use of the Alternate text to help with consuming an image

The important thing is that the alternate text is available and can be put to work per the user's needs in a given situation. It hasn't got that much to do with limitations in a user agent.

Olaf



On 31 Jul 2014, at 11:49, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi Olaf
>
> This doesn't need to be fixed in WCAG or HTML as it is not a constraint
> Refer to example scenarios where alt text may be useful http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#examples-of-scenarios-where-users-benefit-from-text-alternatives-for-images
>
>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:43, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not about disabilities of user agents.
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>>>
>>>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.
>>>
>>> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text."
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>>
>>> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>>>
>>> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.
>>>
>>> Yucca
>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>
>> >> >> > > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 4:17AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Olaf,
I believe that was a quote from HTML 4
Regards
Steve

> On 31 Jul 2014, at 11:59, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> a statement like "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text. " needs to be fixed from my point of view, it needs to become more user centric. As an example just envision an ordinary PDF viewer. It could be used by a low vision person, but that person [heavily using magnification to read the text in it] might find it difficult to take in the overall appearance of an image. A tooltip could be provided (even in text form! but also via text to speech or other means) to make it easier/quicker/feasible for that person to take in the image.
>
> This implies two important aspects:
> - the person is using its sight (albeit via magnification)
> - on top of that that person is making use of the Alternate text to help with consuming an image
>
> The important thing is that the alternate text is available and can be put to work per the user's needs in a given situation. It hasn't got that much to do with limitations in a user agent.
>
> Olaf
>
>
>
>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 11:49, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Olaf
>>
>> This doesn't need to be fixed in WCAG or HTML as it is not a constraint
>> Refer to example scenarios where alt text may be useful http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#examples-of-scenarios-where-users-benefit-from-text-alternatives-for-images
>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:43, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not about disabilities of user agents.
>>>
>>> Olaf
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.
>>>>
>>>> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text."
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>>>
>>>> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>>>>
>>>> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.
>>>>
>>>> Yucca
>>>>
>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
> > >

From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 4:30AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Steve,

point taken!

Olaf


On 31 Jul 2014, at 12:17, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi Olaf,
> I believe that was a quote from HTML 4
> Regards
> Steve
>
>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 11:59, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> a statement like "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text. " needs to be fixed from my point of view, it needs to become more user centric. As an example just envision an ordinary PDF viewer. It could be used by a low vision person, but that person [heavily using magnification to read the text in it] might find it difficult to take in the overall appearance of an image. A tooltip could be provided (even in text form! but also via text to speech or other means) to make it easier/quicker/feasible for that person to take in the image.
>>
>> This implies two important aspects:
>> - the person is using its sight (albeit via magnification)
>> - on top of that that person is making use of the Alternate text to help with consuming an image
>>
>> The important thing is that the alternate text is available and can be put to work per the user's needs in a given situation. It hasn't got that much to do with limitations in a user agent.
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 11:49, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Olaf
>>>
>>> This doesn't need to be fixed in WCAG or HTML as it is not a constraint
>>> Refer to example scenarios where alt text may be useful http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#examples-of-scenarios-where-users-benefit-from-text-alternatives-for-images
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:43, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not about disabilities of user agents.
>>>>
>>>> Olaf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.
>>>>>
>>>>> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text."
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>>>>
>>>>> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>>>>>
>>>>> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yucca
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>
>> >> >> > > >

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 8:30AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

It has generally been my understanding that the W3C HTML specification is
a separate, albeit related and cross-referenced document that is required
to follow the guidelines recommended in WCAG. If WCAG echoed the same
requirements that the W3C was implementing word for word, what would be
the point of having a separate document? This is the approach taken with
other things, such as how ISO 14289 is a stricter interpretation of ISO
32000, but generally useless without it. Additionally, both ISO 14289 and
WCAG ignore elements of their parent documents that they deem to be
irrelevant to inaccessibility.

Jukka is right that the W3C specification explains why it’s requiring alt
text, and that would be great if we all argued about how to interpret HTML
specifications, (or whether the Stargate reference used was the best one
to recommend). Instead we debate interpreting WCAG and other supporting
guidelines to related content from HTML specification.

> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an
>image).
> Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant
> they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.

This is at the very heart of what supporting documents like WCAG are
trying to do. For example, Jukka linked to requirements for images, but
WCAG specifically mentions non-text content. Even it’s definition does not
suggest it’s original authors intended it to only mean images. Recognizing
the benefits of alternate text beyond images, they recommend using it for
"any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be
programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef>; or where the
sequence is not expressing something in human language
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#human-langdef>;.”

Used in this context, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are very
much disturbing an attribute to make it handle other affairs as well.
There are recommendations and examples the HTML specs mention all the
time, but they aren’t (usually) taken as an endorsement of the only way to
do something (A perfect example of this would be when to use <abbr> vs.
<dfn> for capitalization). The things that are related to accessibility
are provided in supporting documents from WAI or in WCAG itself.


Best,
Jon
(p.s. I understand there is a functional difference between WCAG and ISO)





Come chat with me on Twitter: <twitter.com/@jonbmetz>
Stalk me on LinkedIn: <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanmetz>





On 7/31/14, 6:30 AM, "Olaf Drümmer" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>Hi Steve,
>
>point taken!
>
>Olaf
>
>
>On 31 Jul 2014, at 12:17, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Hi Olaf,
>> I believe that was a quote from HTML 4
>> Regards
>> Steve
>>
>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 11:59, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Steve,
>>>
>>> a statement like "For user agents that cannot display images, forms,
>>>or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text. " needs to be
>>>fixed from my point of view, it needs to become more user centric. As
>>>an example just envision an ordinary PDF viewer. It could be used by a
>>>low vision person, but that person [heavily using magnification to read
>>>the text in it] might find it difficult to take in the overall
>>>appearance of an image. A tooltip could be provided (even in text form!
>>>but also via text to speech or other means) to make it
>>>easier/quicker/feasible for that person to take in the image.
>>>
>>> This implies two important aspects:
>>> - the person is using its sight (albeit via magnification)
>>> - on top of that that person is making use of the Alternate text to
>>>help with consuming an image
>>>
>>> The important thing is that the alternate text is available and can be
>>>put to work per the user's needs in a given situation. It hasn't got
>>>that much to do with limitations in a user agent.
>>>
>>> Olaf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 11:49, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Olaf
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't need to be fixed in WCAG or HTML as it is not a
>>>>constraint
>>>> Refer to example scenarios where alt text may be useful
>>>>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#exam
>>>>ples-of-scenarios-where-users-benefit-from-text-alternatives-for-images
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:43, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is
>>>>>not about disabilities of user agents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Olaf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented
>>>>>>>>when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about
>>>>>>>what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived.
>>>>>>>Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech
>>>>>>>plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful.
>>>>>>>All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal
>>>>>>>set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have
>>>>>>>mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion
>>>>>>>and combination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets,
>>>>>>this attribute specifies alternate text."
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an
>>>>>>image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter
>>>>>>how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing
>>>>>>its job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yucca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
>>>

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Thu, Jul 31 2014 7:36PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Olaf wrote:
"This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not
about disabilities of user agents. "

Correct. It's about people and people will use whatever technology they can
to meet their needs.

One of the biggest problems with WCAG is how it's written and organized on
the website. It needs a good team of professional technical writers and
editors to rewrite the gobbily-gook that's there now, and a team of
professional designers create a comprehendible website.

Example: "Decoration, Formatting, Invisible: If non-text content is pure
decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to
users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by assistive
technology." From WCAG guidelines at
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv

Just in yesterday's class, my clients (federal designers, web developers,
and editors) reviewed this guideline and came away more confused than when
they started. Here are some of their comments.

"Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything that
isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."

"Used only for visual formatting." No one could figure out what the WCAG
authors meant by this. It's hard to imagine how graphics could be used for
visual formatting. It's equally hard to know what is meant by visual
formatting because even text is visually formatted. That's how publications
& websites are put together! The only ideas the class could come up with
are rules (or outlines, borders) and background tints that are often placed
around sidebars and other types of "boxed" information to separate them
visually from the rest of the page.

"Or is not presented to users." This phrase was the most confusing. Which
users are they talking about? Sighted, low-vision, or blind users? And how
could a graphic (or non-text element) that's on a webpage or in a document
not be presented? If it's in the document, how could it not be there? (That
comment was by an editor.) What do they mean by this term?

If we want to educate people about accessibility and mandate that it be
done, then we have to give people reasonable tools, directions, standards,
guidelines, etc. so that it the tasks and objectives are understandable and
doable. What we have now on the W3C website is an incomprehensible,
disorganized, confusing mess.

There is one good, readable section on the site: the POUR section
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/. Kudos to the authors for adding this
big-picture concept to WCAG. I use it all the time in my classes when
teaching accessible documents to federal employees. It gets the message
across succinctly. We need more of this.

-Bevi Chagnon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
Taka a Sec. 508 Class in 2014 - www.Pubcom.com/classes

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 9:39AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

I've argued for plain language in regulations and guidelines for years. We
even asked Ginny Redish to do a webinar on plain language and laws for the
508 Refresh Committee. (It's probably still archived somewhere, but if
you're interested, either check out her book Letting Go of the Words -
www.redish.net, or plainlanguage.gov.)

It's not enough for a group of people in a room to decide what something
means. To make standards and regulations easy to follow, they must be
written in clear language.

I urge everyone working on any sort of committee to not only have a subject
matter expert as editor, but also someone skilled in plain language
(preferably someone who is not a "combatant.")

Whitney


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Olaf wrote:
> "This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not
> about disabilities of user agents. "
>
> Correct. It's about people and people will use whatever technology they can
> to meet their needs.
>
> One of the biggest problems with WCAG is how it's written and organized on
> the website. It needs a good team of professional technical writers and
> editors to rewrite the gobbily-gook that's there now, and a team of
> professional designers create a comprehendible website.
>
> Example: "Decoration, Formatting, Invisible: If non-text content is pure
> decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to
> users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by assistive
> technology." From WCAG guidelines at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv
>
> Just in yesterday's class, my clients (federal designers, web developers,
> and editors) reviewed this guideline and came away more confused than when
> they started. Here are some of their comments.
>
> "Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything that
> isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."
>
> "Used only for visual formatting." No one could figure out what the WCAG
> authors meant by this. It's hard to imagine how graphics could be used for
> visual formatting. It's equally hard to know what is meant by visual
> formatting because even text is visually formatted. That's how publications
> & websites are put together! The only ideas the class could come up with
> are rules (or outlines, borders) and background tints that are often placed
> around sidebars and other types of "boxed" information to separate them
> visually from the rest of the page.
>
> "Or is not presented to users." This phrase was the most confusing. Which
> users are they talking about? Sighted, low-vision, or blind users? And how
> could a graphic (or non-text element) that's on a webpage or in a document
> not be presented? If it's in the document, how could it not be there? (That
> comment was by an editor.) What do they mean by this term?
>
> If we want to educate people about accessibility and mandate that it be
> done, then we have to give people reasonable tools, directions, standards,
> guidelines, etc. so that it the tasks and objectives are understandable and
> doable. What we have now on the W3C website is an incomprehensible,
> disorganized, confusing mess.
>
> There is one good, readable section on the site: the POUR section
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/. Kudos to the authors for adding
> this
> big-picture concept to WCAG. I use it all the time in my classes when
> teaching accessible documents to federal employees. It gets the message
> across succinctly. We need more of this.
>
> -Bevi Chagnon
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
> Accessibility.
> Taka a Sec. 508 Class in 2014 - www.Pubcom.com/classes
>
>
> > > >

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 11:06AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

>On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>wrote:
>
>>Olaf wrote:
>>"This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not
>>about disabilities of user agents. "
>>
>>Correct. It's about people and people will use whatever technology they
>>can
>>to meet their needs.


In my opinion, there is no correlation between a specification addressing
the purpose of an attribute and a supporting document’s extrapolation of
accessibility benefits for providing that attribute that would infer a
preference for user agents.

For one thing, Jukka only linked to it's relationship with the <src> tag,
and seems to be hung up on the phrase "...when not available". The
requirements for the attribute is actually explained under 4.7.1.1, which
references WCAG: alt attributes "are a primary way of making visual
information accessible, because they can be rendered through any sensory
modality (for example, visual, auditory or tactile) to match the needs of
the user."


>>One of the biggest problems with WCAG is how it's written and organized
>>on
>>the website. It needs a good team of professional technical writers and
>>editors to rewrite the gobbily-gook that's there now, and a team of
>>professional designers create a comprehendible website.


Because people interpret things differently about EVERYTHING, it makes it
really hard to keep people focused on any underlying concept. As there is
no governing legislative body that dictates: "This is what it means, pure
and simple; period, end of story." Because of this, it’s left to anybody’s
interpretation, and therefore WCAG is written in a very 'Charles
Dickens'-way — it tends to over-explain concepts that are already
over-explained out of necessity.

Take the title "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines". People have said
this means everything you put on the web ('Web Content'), or nothing to do
with how technology works on the web (only 'content' found on websites),
just web sites, etc. In other words, over-explaining provides a way to
cover their bases.

I can see an argument for it being written in plain-language, but I don’t
think that's the right approach. Figurative language is used in plain
language, which adds significant barriers for cognitive impairments and
can make understanding technical documents very difficult. Technical
documents deserve a style of writing which best correlates with it's
purpose.

WCAG is a technical document written by technical people for a technical
subject. It's not something people typically read in the bathroom or on
lunch breaks. That said, I completely — 1000% — agree about the
organization of the content. I also agree that they would benefit from
more web designers joining to present it a bit better.


>>Example... From WCAG guidelines at
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv
>>
>>"Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
>>that
>>isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."


Explained a little further down the page
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#puredecdef>; as a definition: "Pure
decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information,
and having no functionality. Note: Text is only purely decorative if the
words can be rearranged or substituted without changing their purpose.
Example: The cover page of a dictionary has random words in very light
text in the background."


>>"Used only for visual formatting." No one could figure out what the WCAG
>>authors meant by this. It's hard to imagine how graphics could be used
>>for
>>visual formatting. It's equally hard to know what is meant by visual
>>formatting because even text is visually formatted. That's how
>>publications
>>& websites are put together! The only ideas the class could come up with
>>are rules (or outlines, borders) and background tints that are often
>>placed
>>around sidebars and other types of "boxed" information to separate them
>>visually from the rest of the page.


Visual formatting is a term used to describe how user agents process the
document tree for visual media. In CSS 2.1, the Visual Formatting Model
describes the relationship each element in the document tree has to the
box model. Positioning elements has greatly improved accessibility because
images that were once used for visual formatting (like spacer gifs) are
being used less and less. However, there are still web sites that use this
technique <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#positioning-scheme>; and
when they do, this is what WCAG is talking about.


>>"Or is not presented to users." This phrase was the most confusing. Which
>>users are they talking about? Sighted, low-vision, or blind users? And
>>how
>>could a graphic (or non-text element) that's on a webpage or in a
>>document
>>not be presented? If it's in the document, how could it not be there?
>>(That
>>comment was by an editor.) What do they mean by this term?


Some things that come to mind include not marking up comments correctly or
using a white box on a white page to create a margin and failing to
include alt="", etc.


>>If we want to educate people about accessibility and mandate that it be
>>done, then we have to give people reasonable tools, directions,
>>standards,
>>guidelines, etc. so that it the tasks and objectives are understandable
>>and
>>doable. What we have now on the W3C website is an incomprehensible,
>>disorganized, confusing mess.


WCAG does include an (occasionally) helpful link to further understand the
concepts misunderstood by your clients:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.html>;.

-Jon




On 8/1/14, 11:39 AM, "Whitney Quesenbery" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>I've argued for plain language in regulations and guidelines for years. We
>even asked Ginny Redish to do a webinar on plain language and laws for the
>508 Refresh Committee. (It's probably still archived somewhere, but if
>you're interested, either check out her book Letting Go of the Words -
>www.redish.net, or plainlanguage.gov.)
>
>It's not enough for a group of people in a room to decide what something
>means. To make standards and regulations easy to follow, they must be
>written in clear language.
>
>I urge everyone working on any sort of committee to not only have a
>subject
>matter expert as editor, but also someone skilled in plain language
>(preferably someone who is not a "combatant.")
>
>Whitney
>
>
>On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>wrote:
>
>> Olaf wrote:
>> "This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not
>> about disabilities of user agents. "
>>
>> Correct. It's about people and people will use whatever technology they
>>can
>> to meet their needs.
>>
>> One of the biggest problems with WCAG is how it's written and organized
>>on
>> the website. It needs a good team of professional technical writers and
>> editors to rewrite the gobbily-gook that's there now, and a team of
>> professional designers create a comprehendible website.
>>
>> Example: "Decoration, Formatting, Invisible: If non-text content is pure
>> decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to
>> users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by
>>assistive
>> technology." From WCAG guidelines at
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv
>>
>> Just in yesterday's class, my clients (federal designers, web
>>developers,
>> and editors) reviewed this guideline and came away more confused than
>>when
>> they started. Here are some of their comments.
>>
>> "Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
>>that
>> isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."
>>
>> "Used only for visual formatting." No one could figure out what the WCAG
>> authors meant by this. It's hard to imagine how graphics could be used
>>for
>> visual formatting. It's equally hard to know what is meant by visual
>> formatting because even text is visually formatted. That's how
>>publications
>> & websites are put together! The only ideas the class could come up
>>with
>> are rules (or outlines, borders) and background tints that are often
>>placed
>> around sidebars and other types of "boxed" information to separate them
>> visually from the rest of the page.
>>
>> "Or is not presented to users." This phrase was the most confusing.
>>Which
>> users are they talking about? Sighted, low-vision, or blind users? And
>>how
>> could a graphic (or non-text element) that's on a webpage or in a
>>document
>> not be presented? If it's in the document, how could it not be there?
>>(That
>> comment was by an editor.) What do they mean by this term?
>>
>> If we want to educate people about accessibility and mandate that it be
>> done, then we have to give people reasonable tools, directions,
>>standards,
>> guidelines, etc. so that it the tasks and objectives are understandable
>>and
>> doable. What we have now on the W3C website is an incomprehensible,
>> disorganized, confusing mess.
>>
>> There is one good, readable section on the site: the POUR section
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/. Kudos to the authors for adding
>> this
>> big-picture concept to WCAG. I use it all the time in my classes when
>> teaching accessible documents to federal employees. It gets the message
>> across succinctly. We need more of this.
>>
>> -Bevi Chagnon
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>- -
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
>> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
>> Accessibility.
>> Taka a Sec. 508 Class in 2014 - www.Pubcom.com/classes
>>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>>>

From: Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 11:28AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi!

You may find interesting the research work carried out by Lisa Tang:
Producing Informative Text Alternatives for Images (
http://ecommons.usask.ca/handle/10388/ETD-2012-09-657), which served the
ground for this ISO TS:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumberY423

Also, here you have another document that might be of help:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/

I am doing an extensive review on current best practices (according to
international bodies - including W3C -, scholars and web accessiblity
experts) on how to create appropriate text alternatives for images for my
PhD work. Once I will have clear conclusions, I promise to share them with
you, should anyone be interested :-)

Best

Silvia


On 1 August 2014 17:39, Whitney Quesenbery < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I've argued for plain language in regulations and guidelines for years. We
> even asked Ginny Redish to do a webinar on plain language and laws for the
> 508 Refresh Committee. (It's probably still archived somewhere, but if
> you're interested, either check out her book Letting Go of the Words -
> www.redish.net, or plainlanguage.gov.)
>
> It's not enough for a group of people in a room to decide what something
> means. To make standards and regulations easy to follow, they must be
> written in clear language.
>
> I urge everyone working on any sort of committee to not only have a subject
> matter expert as editor, but also someone skilled in plain language
> (preferably someone who is not a "combatant.")
>
> Whitney
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Olaf wrote:
> > "This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not
> > about disabilities of user agents. "
> >
> > Correct. It's about people and people will use whatever technology they
> can
> > to meet their needs.
> >
> > One of the biggest problems with WCAG is how it's written and organized
> on
> > the website. It needs a good team of professional technical writers and
> > editors to rewrite the gobbily-gook that's there now, and a team of
> > professional designers create a comprehendible website.
> >
> > Example: "Decoration, Formatting, Invisible: If non-text content is pure
> > decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to
> > users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by
> assistive
> > technology." From WCAG guidelines at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#text-equiv
> >
> > Just in yesterday's class, my clients (federal designers, web developers,
> > and editors) reviewed this guideline and came away more confused than
> when
> > they started. Here are some of their comments.
> >
> > "Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
> that
> > isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."
> >
> > "Used only for visual formatting." No one could figure out what the WCAG
> > authors meant by this. It's hard to imagine how graphics could be used
> for
> > visual formatting. It's equally hard to know what is meant by visual
> > formatting because even text is visually formatted. That's how
> publications
> > & websites are put together! The only ideas the class could come up with
> > are rules (or outlines, borders) and background tints that are often
> placed
> > around sidebars and other types of "boxed" information to separate them
> > visually from the rest of the page.
> >
> > "Or is not presented to users." This phrase was the most confusing. Which
> > users are they talking about? Sighted, low-vision, or blind users? And
> how
> > could a graphic (or non-text element) that's on a webpage or in a
> document
> > not be presented? If it's in the document, how could it not be there?
> (That
> > comment was by an editor.) What do they mean by this term?
> >
> > If we want to educate people about accessibility and mandate that it be
> > done, then we have to give people reasonable tools, directions,
> standards,
> > guidelines, etc. so that it the tasks and objectives are understandable
> and
> > doable. What we have now on the W3C website is an incomprehensible,
> > disorganized, confusing mess.
> >
> > There is one good, readable section on the site: the POUR section
> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/. Kudos to the authors for adding
> > this
> > big-picture concept to WCAG. I use it all the time in my classes when
> > teaching accessible documents to federal employees. It gets the message
> > across succinctly. We need more of this.
> >
> > -Bevi Chagnon
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - -
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
> > Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
> > Accessibility.
> > Taka a Sec. 508 Class in 2014 - www.Pubcom.com/classes
> >
> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >


*Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez*
Doctoral Assistant
Multilingual Information Processing Department (TIM), FTI/UNIGE
http://www.issco.unige.ch/en/staff/rodriguez/

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 11:52AM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

> Also, here you have another document that might be of help:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 1 Aug 2014, at 19:28, Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> Also, here you have another document that might be of help:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/

That version is 2 years old the latest version is
http://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/

From: Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 12:00PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Oh, this is great, thanks a lot! When clicking on "Latest editor's draft"
on the version I sent, I was taken to an older version from 5 October 2012.

Best,

Silvia


On 1 August 2014 19:52, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> > Also, here you have another document that might be of help:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 1 Aug 2014, at 19:28, Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, here you have another document that might be of help:
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-alt-techniques/
>
> That version is 2 years old the latest version is
> http://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/
> > > >

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 12:01PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

2014-08-01 20:06, Jonathan Metz wrote:

> In my opinion, there is no correlation between a specification addressing
> the purpose of an attribute and a supporting document’s extrapolation of
> accessibility benefits for providing that attribute that would infer a
> preference for user agents.

What? That sounds hopelessly abstract.

> For one thing, Jukka only linked to it's relationship with the <src> tag,
> and seems to be hung up on the phrase "...when not available".

No, I did not mention the <src> tag (there is no such tag), and yes, I
am advocating the use of an alt attribute for the purpose it was
designed for and has been defined in HTML specifications.

> The requirements for the attribute is actually explained under 4.7.1.1, which
> references WCAG: alt attributes "are a primary way of making visual
> information accessible, because they can be rendered through any sensory
> modality (for example, visual, auditory or tactile) to match the needs of
> the user."

This simply means that the alt attribute is to be rendered *instead of*
the image. The phrase "making visual information accessible" is poorly
formulated, since alt attributes are not meant to make blind people see.
Instead, they are the way to make *some* information available to people
who do not see the image. That information is to be written by the
author, and it *should* correspond, as far as possible, the visual
information in the image. Realistically speaking, when the image is a
photo, for example, the alt text *cannot* correspond to the visual
information very well. Authors should do their best, but they should not
be required to do more.

The alt attribute is most useful when there is a simple text replacement
for an image, so obvious that anyone who sees the image and understands
its context can write the text in a second. Purely decorative images and
text as images are the most obvious cases. This is where the alt
attribute does its job well when written to act as a replacement, not a
description (say, "item" or "bullet", not "red fancy bullet with
blinking eyes").

>>> "Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
>>> that
>>> isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."
>
> Explained a little further down the page
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#puredecdef>; as a definition: "Pure
> decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information,
> and having no functionality. Note: Text is only purely decorative if the
> words can be rearranged or substituted without changing their purpose.
> Example: The cover page of a dictionary has random words in very light
> text in the background."

That's a manifestly poor example. Those random words are excerpts from
the dictionary. When I look at them, I can see that it is an English
dictionary, or a French dictionary, or a Greek dictionary, or whatever
it might be. It's far from being "pure decoration".

But it's an image for which alt="" is adequate, on the simple grounds
that this is the only no-nonsense approach. There is no way (or at least
I cannot see a way) to present the same information in a non-visual way
in a similarly non-disruptive manner. If you make a speech browser speak
those words, or a Braille device present them, or a text-only browser
display them, you would be giving the same information, but in a wrong
way, disturbing the user rather than helping him.

It would be a different matter if the cover page did not contain a
normal title of the dictionary at all, just those random words. Then the
information conveyed by those words, in a rather implicit way, would be
too important for the context to be simply omitted. Then you should find
out what the dictionary really is about and say that in the alt
attribute, e.g. alt="An English dictionary of obscene words" or alt="A
French dictionary of cooking terms". If you cannot do that, and cannot
get help on it, the least of evils would be to write an alt attribute
that contains the words or some subset of them.

Yucca

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 1:21PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

On 8/1/14, 2:01 PM, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:


>What? That sounds hopelessly abstract.

I’m not sure I comprehend your statement. If you didn’t understand me,
please just say so. I was saying a supporting document expanding something
a spec document states does not imply that that the supporting document is
preferring technology over users.

>
>>For one thing, Jukka only linked to it's relationship with the <src> tag,
>>and seems to be hung up on the phrase "...when not available".
>
>No, I did not mention the <src> tag

The link you originally provided…

>>"alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available”
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt

…references the src attribute:

“The image given by the src attributes is the embedded content; the value
of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who cannot
process images or who have image loading disabled.”

Then immediately following that is:

“The requirements on the alt
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt>;
attribute's value are described in the next section
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#alt>;."


>(there is no such tag),


::rolling eyes, shaking head::




>and yes, I
>am advocating the use of an alt attribute for the purpose it was
>designed for and has been defined in HTML specifications.


But that is not where you were linking to. The definition is found here:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#alt>;



>
>>The requirements for the attribute is actually explained under 4.7.1.1,
>>which
>>references WCAG: alt attributes "are a primary way of making visual
>>information accessible, because they can be rendered through any sensory
>>modality (for example, visual, auditory or tactile) to match the needs of
>>the user."
>
>This simply means that the alt attribute is to be rendered *instead of*
>the image. The phrase "making visual information accessible" is poorly
>formulated, since alt attributes are not meant to make blind people see.


I guess if WCAG were written for the sole purpose of helping blind people
access content, that comment might make more sense to me. Yet WCAG is not
implying that “making visual information accessible” means “providing the
gift of sight”. Instead it is implying more than one way of providing
information.


>Instead, they are the way to make *some* information available to people
>who do not see the image.


Yeah, true… That would be ONE reason for using alternate text. But there
are other reasons too:

4.7.1.1.1 Examples of scenarios where users benefit from text alternatives
for images

* They have a very slow connection and are browsing with images disabled.
* They have a vision impairment and use text to speech software.
* They have a cognitive impairment and use text to speech software.
* They are using a text-only browser.
* They are listening to the page being read out by a voice Web browser.
* They have images disabled to save on download costs.
* They have problems loading images or the source of an image is wrong.

Clearly, the specification states multiple benefits of using text
alternatives.



>Realistically speaking, when the image is a
>photo, for example, the alt text *cannot* correspond to the visual
>information very well.


I don’t think I understand you here. Are you saying that if a photo is
included, there is no way to describe what is going on in the photo?



>Authors should do their best, but they should not
>be required to do more.


“Doing their best” is a really vague concept, and runs a risk of relying
on a person’s level of laziness.

If authors are having a difficult time understanding what content makes
for good alt text, there are plenty of techniques for text alternatives.
Here’s an authoritative example:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#text-equiv



>The alt attribute is most useful when there is a simple text replacement
>for an image, so obvious that anyone who sees the image and understands
>its context can write the text in a second.

I happen to disagree. In my opinion, alt text is the most useful when it
clearly describes non-text in as succinctly as possible. If that happens
to mean a longer description, then so be it.

>Purely decorative images and
>text as images are the most obvious cases. This is where the alt
>attribute does its job well when written to act as a replacement, not a
>description (say, "item" or "bullet", not "red fancy bullet with
>blinking eyes").

Wait. What? Why would you provide information for purely inconsequential
items?

>
>>>>"Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
>>>>that
>>>>isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."
>>
>>Explained a little further down the page
>><http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#puredecdef>; as a definition: "Pure
>>decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information,
>>and having no functionality. Note: Text is only purely decorative if the
>>words can be rearranged or substituted without changing their purpose.
>>Example: The cover page of a dictionary has random words in very light
>>text in the background."
>
>That's a manifestly poor example. Those random words are excerpts from
>the dictionary. When I look at them, I can see that it is an English
>dictionary, or a French dictionary, or a Greek dictionary, or whatever
>it might be. It's far from being "pure decoration".


Sorry, I didn’t write the example: it’s from WCAG. Still, if you came
across a subtle background of a seashell pattern on a web site about coral
plant life, would you really want to be notified that the designer used a
repeating clip art graphic?


>But it's an image for which alt="" is adequate, on the simple grounds
>that this is the only no-nonsense approach. There is no way (or at least
>I cannot see a way) to present the same information in a non-visual way
>in a similarly non-disruptive manner.


So… You’re agreeing that this was a good example then? Excuse me for
sounding obtuse, but are we just arguing now?


>If you make a speech browser speak
>those words, or a Braille device present them, or a text-only browser
>display them, you would be giving the same information, but in a wrong
>way, disturbing the user rather than helping him.


I completely agree with you here.

There are often times when I come across a web page and I see something
that is artsy. These things are generally ignored. Often times I will go
to a very technical document and start reading it. A lot of times, I have
difficulty understanding what they are talking about, and sometimes an
image will be helpful to convey the information. If I encounter an image
with it that doesn’t make sense to the rest of the content, I’ll inspect
the element and see if there is alternate description. If I see that the
content is basically describing what is going on in the photo but has
nothing to do with what I’m reading about, I’m still as lost as I was
before, only several minutes later and now also distracted about why that
image was included as a reference.

However, if I come across content I don’t understand and inspect an
accompanied photo to learn it doesn’t have alternate text, I assume that
it’s just filler. I’m still lost, but now I can focus on trying to
understand the information in the content rather than how the content
relates to a stock photo.

Jon




On 8/1/14, 2:01 PM, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>2014-08-01 20:06, Jonathan Metz wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, there is no correlation between a specification
>>addressing
>> the purpose of an attribute and a supporting document’s extrapolation of
>> accessibility benefits for providing that attribute that would infer a
>> preference for user agents.
>
>What? That sounds hopelessly abstract.
>
>> For one thing, Jukka only linked to it's relationship with the <src>
>>tag,
>> and seems to be hung up on the phrase "...when not available".
>
>No, I did not mention the <src> tag (there is no such tag), and yes, I
>am advocating the use of an alt attribute for the purpose it was
>designed for and has been defined in HTML specifications.
>
>> The requirements for the attribute is actually explained under 4.7.1.1,
>>which
>> references WCAG: alt attributes "are a primary way of making visual
>> information accessible, because they can be rendered through any sensory
>> modality (for example, visual, auditory or tactile) to match the needs
>>of
>> the user."
>
>This simply means that the alt attribute is to be rendered *instead of*
>the image. The phrase "making visual information accessible" is poorly
>formulated, since alt attributes are not meant to make blind people see.
>Instead, they are the way to make *some* information available to people
>who do not see the image. That information is to be written by the
>author, and it *should* correspond, as far as possible, the visual
>information in the image. Realistically speaking, when the image is a
>photo, for example, the alt text *cannot* correspond to the visual
>information very well. Authors should do their best, but they should not
>be required to do more.
>
>The alt attribute is most useful when there is a simple text replacement
>for an image, so obvious that anyone who sees the image and understands
>its context can write the text in a second. Purely decorative images and
>text as images are the most obvious cases. This is where the alt
>attribute does its job well when written to act as a replacement, not a
>description (say, "item" or "bullet", not "red fancy bullet with
>blinking eyes").
>
>>>> "Pure decoration." Too ambiguous a term. Undefined. Nearly everything
>>>> that
>>>> isn't text could end up classified as "pure decoration."
>>
>> Explained a little further down the page
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#puredecdef>; as a definition: "Pure
>> decoration: serving only an aesthetic purpose, providing no information,
>> and having no functionality. Note: Text is only purely decorative if the
>> words can be rearranged or substituted without changing their purpose.
>> Example: The cover page of a dictionary has random words in very light
>> text in the background."
>
>That's a manifestly poor example. Those random words are excerpts from
>the dictionary. When I look at them, I can see that it is an English
>dictionary, or a French dictionary, or a Greek dictionary, or whatever
>it might be. It's far from being "pure decoration".
>
>But it's an image for which alt="" is adequate, on the simple grounds
>that this is the only no-nonsense approach. There is no way (or at least
>I cannot see a way) to present the same information in a non-visual way
>in a similarly non-disruptive manner. If you make a speech browser speak
>those words, or a Braille device present them, or a text-only browser
>display them, you would be giving the same information, but in a wrong
>way, disturbing the user rather than helping him.
>
>It would be a different matter if the cover page did not contain a
>normal title of the dictionary at all, just those random words. Then the
>information conveyed by those words, in a rather implicit way, would be
>too important for the context to be simply omitted. Then you should find
>out what the dictionary really is about and say that in the alt
>attribute, e.g. alt="An English dictionary of obscene words" or alt="A
>French dictionary of cooking terms". If you cannot do that, and cannot
>get help on it, the least of evils would be to write an alt attribute
>that contains the words or some subset of them.
>
>Yucca
>
>
>>>

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 2:33PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

2014-08-01 22:21, Jonathan Metz wrote:

>> No, I did not mention the <src> tag
>
> The link you originally provided…
[...]
> …references the src attribute:

Attributes are not tags. And it's the alt attribute, not the src
attribute that is being discussed

>> and yes, I
>> am advocating the use of an alt attribute for the purpose it was
>> designed for and has been defined in HTML specifications.
>
> But that is not where you were linking to. The definition is found here:
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#alt>;

All HTML specifications, and also HTML5 drafts, define the alt attribute
as specifying a textual replacement for the image, for use when the
image is not displayed. They are partly rather sloppy in their wordings,
also referring to "descriptions" rather than replacements, but the
definitions proper (as opposite to annotations) are rather clear.

Most importantly, we need to decide whether an alt attribute is written
to act as a replacement (for use when the image is not seen at all) or
as an annotation/commentary/description. You can't have it both ways, in
general.

>> This simply means that the alt attribute is to be rendered *instead of*
>> the image. The phrase "making visual information accessible" is poorly
>> formulated, since alt attributes are not meant to make blind people see.
>
> I guess if WCAG were written for the sole purpose of helping blind people
> access content, that comment might make more sense to me. Yet WCAG is not
> implying that “making visual information accessible” means “providing the
> gift of sight”. Instead it is implying more than one way of providing
> information.

In the case of <img>, the HTML language provides exactly two alternative
ways: an image and a piece of text. How the text (when it is rendered)
is presented to the user will depend on the browser.

>> Instead, they are the way to make *some* information available to people
>> who do not see the image.
>
> Yeah, true… That would be ONE reason for using alternate text. But there
> are other reasons too:
>
> 4.7.1.1.1 Examples of scenarios where users benefit from text alternatives
> for images
>
> * They have a very slow connection and are browsing with images disabled.
> * They have a vision impairment and use text to speech software.
> * They have a cognitive impairment and use text to speech software.
> * They are using a text-only browser.
> * They are listening to the page being read out by a voice Web browser.
> * They have images disabled to save on download costs.
> * They have problems loading images or the source of an image is wrong.

These all mean that the image is not seen.

>> Realistically speaking, when the image is a
>> photo, for example, the alt text *cannot* correspond to the visual
>> information very well.
>
> I don’t think I understand you here. Are you saying that if a photo is
> included, there is no way to describe what is going on in the photo?

Yes. You might be able to describe part of its content somehow, but it
is an illusion to think that one can write adequate textual replacements
for photos, except in rather trivial cases. Pick up any photo from your
personal photo gallery and think how you would describe its content over
the phone. Of course you can tell that it is a photo of uncle Joe, but
that would apply to any photo of uncle Joe, so it can hardly contain the
information content of a particular photo.

>> Purely decorative images and
>> text as images are the most obvious cases. This is where the alt
>> attribute does its job well when written to act as a replacement, not a
>> description (say, "item" or "bullet", not "red fancy bullet with
>> blinking eyes").
>
> Wait. What? Why would you provide information for purely inconsequential
> items?

When an image is used as a list bullet, I would use alt="item" or
alt="bullet" or something like that. Wouldn't you? Or would you explain
all the details of the bullet image?

>> That's a manifestly poor example. Those random words are excerpts from
>> the dictionary. When I look at them, I can see that it is an English
>> dictionary, or a French dictionary, or a Greek dictionary, or whatever
>> it might be. It's far from being "pure decoration".
>
> Sorry, I didn’t write the example: it’s from WCAG.

You mentioned it, and I explained why it's a poor example.

> Still, if you came
> across a subtle background of a seashell pattern on a web site about coral
> plant life, would you really want to be notified that the designer used a
> repeating clip art graphic?

No, not any more than I want the random words read aloud. As I wrote,
alt="" is adequate, but definitely not because the image is purely
decorative

>> But it's an image for which alt="" is adequate, on the simple grounds
>> that this is the only no-nonsense approach. There is no way (or at least
>> I cannot see a way) to present the same information in a non-visual way
>> in a similarly non-disruptive manner.
>
> So… You’re agreeing that this was a good example then?

No, it's a poor example, because it presents the case as an example of
purely decorative image, when it is no way near purely decorative. A
nice image of a beautiful butterfly is purely decorative on a page that
has absolutely nothing to do with butterflies. On a page about insects,
it is a topical image. On a page about butterflies, even more so.

> However, if I come across content I don’t understand and inspect an
> accompanied photo to learn it doesn’t have alternate text, I assume that
> it’s just filler. I’m still lost, but now I can focus on trying to
> understand the information in the content rather than how the content
> relates to a stock photo.

You draw such conclusions at your own risk. The alt text isn't even
meant to be seen when the image is displayed. There are myriads of
reasons, some of them rather good, why an image might have alt="" even
though seeing it helps in understanding the page content. If there is no
way to help a person who does not see the image the same way as the
image may help a person who sees it, it is much better to use alt=""
than to write something that does not help.

In order to explain how a photo relates to the rest of the content, or
vice versa, normal text should be used, in running text or as an image
caption. After all, that text would be meant for people who see the
image, not to those that don't. It's just unfortunate that there is no
way in HTML to make such texts shown only when the image is shown.

Yucca

From: Greg Gamble
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 2:48PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Sorry for stepping in here, but what do you mean by this?

>
In order to explain how a photo relates to the rest of the content, or vice versa, normal text should be used, in running text or as an image caption. After all, that text would be meant for people who see the image, not to those that don't. It's just unfortunate that there is no way in HTML to make such texts shown only when the image is shown.
<

Do you mean something like hover text or a watermark? Curious on what you were thinking about.


Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:33 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question about image in the alt attribute

2014-08-01 22:21, Jonathan Metz wrote:

>> No, I did not mention the <src> tag
>
> The link you originally provided…
[...]
> …references the src attribute:

Attributes are not tags. And it's the alt attribute, not the src attribute that is being discussed

>> and yes, I
>> am advocating the use of an alt attribute for the purpose it was
>> designed for and has been defined in HTML specifications.
>
> But that is not where you were linking to. The definition is found here:
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#alt>;

All HTML specifications, and also HTML5 drafts, define the alt attribute as specifying a textual replacement for the image, for use when the image is not displayed. They are partly rather sloppy in their wordings, also referring to "descriptions" rather than replacements, but the definitions proper (as opposite to annotations) are rather clear.

Most importantly, we need to decide whether an alt attribute is written to act as a replacement (for use when the image is not seen at all) or as an annotation/commentary/description. You can't have it both ways, in general.

>> This simply means that the alt attribute is to be rendered *instead
>> of* the image. The phrase "making visual information accessible" is
>> poorly formulated, since alt attributes are not meant to make blind people see.
>
> I guess if WCAG were written for the sole purpose of helping blind
> people access content, that comment might make more sense to me. Yet
> WCAG is not implying that “making visual information accessible” means
> “providing the gift of sight”. Instead it is implying more than one
> way of providing information.

In the case of <img>, the HTML language provides exactly two alternative
ways: an image and a piece of text. How the text (when it is rendered) is presented to the user will depend on the browser.

>> Instead, they are the way to make *some* information available to
>> people who do not see the image.
>
> Yeah, true… That would be ONE reason for using alternate text. But
> there are other reasons too:
>
> 4.7.1.1.1 Examples of scenarios where users benefit from text
> alternatives for images
>
> * They have a very slow connection and are browsing with images disabled.
> * They have a vision impairment and use text to speech software.
> * They have a cognitive impairment and use text to speech software.
> * They are using a text-only browser.
> * They are listening to the page being read out by a voice Web browser.
> * They have images disabled to save on download costs.
> * They have problems loading images or the source of an image is wrong.

These all mean that the image is not seen.

>> Realistically speaking, when the image is a photo, for example, the
>> alt text *cannot* correspond to the visual information very well.
>
> I don’t think I understand you here. Are you saying that if a photo is
> included, there is no way to describe what is going on in the photo?

Yes. You might be able to describe part of its content somehow, but it is an illusion to think that one can write adequate textual replacements for photos, except in rather trivial cases. Pick up any photo from your personal photo gallery and think how you would describe its content over the phone. Of course you can tell that it is a photo of uncle Joe, but that would apply to any photo of uncle Joe, so it can hardly contain the information content of a particular photo.

>> Purely decorative images and
>> text as images are the most obvious cases. This is where the alt
>> attribute does its job well when written to act as a replacement, not
>> a description (say, "item" or "bullet", not "red fancy bullet with
>> blinking eyes").
>
> Wait. What? Why would you provide information for purely
> inconsequential items?

When an image is used as a list bullet, I would use alt="item" or alt="bullet" or something like that. Wouldn't you? Or would you explain all the details of the bullet image?

>> That's a manifestly poor example. Those random words are excerpts
>> from the dictionary. When I look at them, I can see that it is an
>> English dictionary, or a French dictionary, or a Greek dictionary, or
>> whatever it might be. It's far from being "pure decoration".
>
> Sorry, I didn’t write the example: it’s from WCAG.

You mentioned it, and I explained why it's a poor example.

> Still, if you came
> across a subtle background of a seashell pattern on a web site about
> coral plant life, would you really want to be notified that the
> designer used a repeating clip art graphic?

No, not any more than I want the random words read aloud. As I wrote, alt="" is adequate, but definitely not because the image is purely decorative

>> But it's an image for which alt="" is adequate, on the simple grounds
>> that this is the only no-nonsense approach. There is no way (or at
>> least I cannot see a way) to present the same information in a
>> non-visual way in a similarly non-disruptive manner.
>
> So… You’re agreeing that this was a good example then?

No, it's a poor example, because it presents the case as an example of purely decorative image, when it is no way near purely decorative. A nice image of a beautiful butterfly is purely decorative on a page that has absolutely nothing to do with butterflies. On a page about insects, it is a topical image. On a page about butterflies, even more so.

> However, if I come across content I don’t understand and inspect an
> accompanied photo to learn it doesn’t have alternate text, I assume
> that it’s just filler. I’m still lost, but now I can focus on trying
> to understand the information in the content rather than how the
> content relates to a stock photo.

You draw such conclusions at your own risk. The alt text isn't even meant to be seen when the image is displayed. There are myriads of reasons, some of them rather good, why an image might have alt="" even though seeing it helps in understanding the page content. If there is no way to help a person who does not see the image the same way as the image may help a person who sees it, it is much better to use alt=""
than to write something that does not help.

In order to explain how a photo relates to the rest of the content, or vice versa, normal text should be used, in running text or as an image caption. After all, that text would be meant for people who see the image, not to those that don't. It's just unfortunate that there is no way in HTML to make such texts shown only when the image is shown.

Yucca

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 3:15PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

I've said it before: This is not a problem that is going to be solved by
trying to write a single set of rules or through complex technological
coding.

The "right" alt text depends on the text around the image, the caption and
how meaningfully it is written, what's in the image, and how it's used.

Instead of trying to make web sites adapt technically to an almost infinite
variety of people, technology and contexts, it's about writing for the
accessible web.

I think this may be why it's so important to do some level of
guidelines/best practices work within an organization, so that the norms
and style guides work for that organization's style and for the kind of
content they write. In part, the process of creating that group/team/org
style guide is how you make the rules your own.

I also think that a little usability testing is an important part of any
design and development (once you have gotten past basic accessibility
barriers). No matter how much we know about the audience, we are not the
audience. At least, we are just one representative of it. So it's a good
exercise to find out what actually makes a difference in real tasks with
real users.



On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Greg Gamble < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Sorry for stepping in here, but what do you mean by this?
>
> >
> In order to explain how a photo relates to the rest of the content, or
> vice versa, normal text should be used, in running text or as an image
> caption. After all, that text would be meant for people who see the image,
> not to those that don't. It's just unfortunate that there is no way in HTML
> to make such texts shown only when the image is shown.
> <
>
> Do you mean something like hover text or a watermark? Curious on what you
> were thinking about.
>
>
> Greg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:33 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question about image in the alt attribute
>
> 2014-08-01 22:21, Jonathan Metz wrote:
>
> >> No, I did not mention the <src> tag
> >
> > The link you originally provided…
> [...]
> > …references the src attribute:
>
> Attributes are not tags. And it's the alt attribute, not the src attribute
> that is being discussed
>
> >> and yes, I
> >> am advocating the use of an alt attribute for the purpose it was
> >> designed for and has been defined in HTML specifications.
> >
> > But that is not where you were linking to. The definition is found here:
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#alt>;
>
> All HTML specifications, and also HTML5 drafts, define the alt attribute
> as specifying a textual replacement for the image, for use when the image
> is not displayed. They are partly rather sloppy in their wordings, also
> referring to "descriptions" rather than replacements, but the definitions
> proper (as opposite to annotations) are rather clear.
>
> Most importantly, we need to decide whether an alt attribute is written to
> act as a replacement (for use when the image is not seen at all) or as an
> annotation/commentary/description. You can't have it both ways, in general.
>
> >> This simply means that the alt attribute is to be rendered *instead
> >> of* the image. The phrase "making visual information accessible" is
> >> poorly formulated, since alt attributes are not meant to make blind
> people see.
> >
> > I guess if WCAG were written for the sole purpose of helping blind
> > people access content, that comment might make more sense to me. Yet
> > WCAG is not implying that “making visual information accessible” means
> > “providing the gift of sight”. Instead it is implying more than one
> > way of providing information.
>
> In the case of <img>, the HTML language provides exactly two alternative
> ways: an image and a piece of text. How the text (when it is rendered) is
> presented to the user will depend on the browser.
>
> >> Instead, they are the way to make *some* information available to
> >> people who do not see the image.
> >
> > Yeah, true… That would be ONE reason for using alternate text. But
> > there are other reasons too:
> >
> > 4.7.1.1.1 Examples of scenarios where users benefit from text
> > alternatives for images
> >
> > * They have a very slow connection and are browsing with images disabled.
> > * They have a vision impairment and use text to speech software.
> > * They have a cognitive impairment and use text to speech software.
> > * They are using a text-only browser.
> > * They are listening to the page being read out by a voice Web browser.
> > * They have images disabled to save on download costs.
> > * They have problems loading images or the source of an image is wrong.
>
> These all mean that the image is not seen.
>
> >> Realistically speaking, when the image is a photo, for example, the
> >> alt text *cannot* correspond to the visual information very well.
> >
> > I don’t think I understand you here. Are you saying that if a photo is
> > included, there is no way to describe what is going on in the photo?
>
> Yes. You might be able to describe part of its content somehow, but it is
> an illusion to think that one can write adequate textual replacements for
> photos, except in rather trivial cases. Pick up any photo from your
> personal photo gallery and think how you would describe its content over
> the phone. Of course you can tell that it is a photo of uncle Joe, but that
> would apply to any photo of uncle Joe, so it can hardly contain the
> information content of a particular photo.
>
> >> Purely decorative images and
> >> text as images are the most obvious cases. This is where the alt
> >> attribute does its job well when written to act as a replacement, not
> >> a description (say, "item" or "bullet", not "red fancy bullet with
> >> blinking eyes").
> >
> > Wait. What? Why would you provide information for purely
> > inconsequential items?
>
> When an image is used as a list bullet, I would use alt="item" or
> alt="bullet" or something like that. Wouldn't you? Or would you explain all
> the details of the bullet image?
>
> >> That's a manifestly poor example. Those random words are excerpts
> >> from the dictionary. When I look at them, I can see that it is an
> >> English dictionary, or a French dictionary, or a Greek dictionary, or
> >> whatever it might be. It's far from being "pure decoration".
> >
> > Sorry, I didn’t write the example: it’s from WCAG.
>
> You mentioned it, and I explained why it's a poor example.
>
> > Still, if you came
> > across a subtle background of a seashell pattern on a web site about
> > coral plant life, would you really want to be notified that the
> > designer used a repeating clip art graphic?
>
> No, not any more than I want the random words read aloud. As I wrote,
> alt="" is adequate, but definitely not because the image is purely
> decorative
>
> >> But it's an image for which alt="" is adequate, on the simple grounds
> >> that this is the only no-nonsense approach. There is no way (or at
> >> least I cannot see a way) to present the same information in a
> >> non-visual way in a similarly non-disruptive manner.
> >
> > So… You’re agreeing that this was a good example then?
>
> No, it's a poor example, because it presents the case as an example of
> purely decorative image, when it is no way near purely decorative. A nice
> image of a beautiful butterfly is purely decorative on a page that has
> absolutely nothing to do with butterflies. On a page about insects, it is a
> topical image. On a page about butterflies, even more so.
>
> > However, if I come across content I don’t understand and inspect an
> > accompanied photo to learn it doesn’t have alternate text, I assume
> > that it’s just filler. I’m still lost, but now I can focus on trying
> > to understand the information in the content rather than how the
> > content relates to a stock photo.
>
> You draw such conclusions at your own risk. The alt text isn't even meant
> to be seen when the image is displayed. There are myriads of reasons, some
> of them rather good, why an image might have alt="" even though seeing it
> helps in understanding the page content. If there is no way to help a
> person who does not see the image the same way as the image may help a
> person who sees it, it is much better to use alt=""
> than to write something that does not help.
>
> In order to explain how a photo relates to the rest of the content, or
> vice versa, normal text should be used, in running text or as an image
> caption. After all, that text would be meant for people who see the image,
> not to those that don't. It's just unfortunate that there is no way in HTML
> to make such texts shown only when the image is shown.
>
> Yucca
>
> > > messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > >

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2014 4:43PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

On 8/1/14, 4:33 PM, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>Attributes are not tags.


I’m finding it irritating that you continue to point out an error I made
by mistake — after recognizing you understood what I meant — despite not
adding value to the conversation.


>All HTML specifications, and also HTML5 drafts, define the alt attribute
>as specifying a textual replacement for the image, for use when the
>image is not displayed. They are partly rather sloppy in their wordings,
>also referring to "descriptions" rather than replacements, but the
>definitions proper (as opposite to annotations) are rather clear.


My main argument has been to focus on the way WCAG defines it because HTML
specifications are intended for more than just one purpose. They have a
wide range of applications, one of which is accessibility and we should
focus on instructions that deal with that instead.

It makes sense for HTML specifications to define the alt attribute this
way, because HTML standards discuss the relationship between a language
and technology.

On the other hand, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines discuss a
relationship between technology and users when implementing said standard.
In this regard, WCAG defines a fundamental means of describing something
differently in order to be understood by a variety of different methods.


>Most importantly, we need to decide whether an alt attribute is written
>to act as a replacement (for use when the image is not seen at all) or
>as an annotation/commentary/description. You can't have it both ways, in
>general.


I *think* I agree with you here. I do not believe that text alternatives
should refer to a relationship between the content and the non-text
element, but I don’t think I’ve said that during this conversation.


>In the case of <img>, the HTML language provides exactly two alternative
>ways: an image and a piece of text. How the text (when it is rendered)
>is presented to the user will depend on the browser.

It sounds like you are trying to explain the relationship between
technology and code. I am more interested in determining the purpose of
alternate text being for more than one disability, which I surmised based
on your original response to Bevi about how her understanding of the alt
tag is not the intended purpose:

Bevi:
>Please keep in mind that WCAG's standards/guidelines for Alt-text aren't
>only for those who are fully blind. Partially-sighted and low-vision users
>rely on Alt-text, also. People with various dyslexia as well as
>autism/Asperger's also benefit from Alt-text on graphics because it can
>help
>reinforce their perception of the graphic.

Yucca (I’m sorry, is it Yucca or Jukka?):
>That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the
>image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.

People in this field have a tendency to be disability- or
technology-specific at the detriment of furthering a goal of inclusion.

>>4.7.1.1.1 Examples of scenarios where users benefit from text
>>alternatives
>>for images
>>
>>* They have a very slow connection and are browsing with images disabled.
>>* They have a vision impairment and use text to speech software.
>>* They have a cognitive impairment and use text to speech software.
>>* They are using a text-only browser.
>>* They are listening to the page being read out by a voice Web browser.
>>* They have images disabled to save on download costs.
>>* They have problems loading images or the source of an image is wrong.
>
>These all mean that the image is not seen.


No, that is not accurate.

4.7.1.1, Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for
images, doesn’t state that alt text is provided when the image is not seen
— only that there is an *alternative*. You are personally applying a
reason of using an alternative, but HTML5 does not state that images are
in fact unseen.

If this is was the case, why would there ever be alternate text for videos
(captioning)?

>>I don’t think I understand you here. Are you saying that if a photo is
>>included, there is no way to describe what is going on in the photo?
>
>Yes. You might be able to describe part of its content somehow, but it
>is an illusion to think that one can write adequate textual replacements
>for photos, except in rather trivial cases. Pick up any photo from your
>personal photo gallery and think how you would describe its content over
>the phone. Of course you can tell that it is a photo of uncle Joe, but
>that would apply to any photo of uncle Joe, so it can hardly contain the
>information content of a particular photo.

That’s not the purpose of alternate text though. There needs to be enough
information for someone to grasp an understanding of what is going on. If
I were to tell you that I have a photo of President Obama, to compensate
for a lack of having never seen this man, you would be able to
conceptualize an understanding of the image based on your own senses. For
example, one might hear him speaking when thinking about him.

Keep in mind that while there are many of us out there who think in terms
of images, and that is actually how we communicate with the outside world,
we may still rely on authors to provide us with more information for their
choice of image.

For example, WebAIM has an excellent example of this in practice
<http://webaim.org/articles/cognitive/#reading>;. When I came across the
text:

"Tob eornot obe"

I stared at it for a really long time, but without the image I was having
trouble figuring it out.

If I was still having problems figuring it out though, I could Inspect the
image and sure enough there is alt="portrait of William Shakespeare”
included. I might not have ever seen a picture of Shakespeare, but I could
acknowledge a relationship between the image and "To be or Not to Be”
because it provided related context.


>When an image is used as a list bullet, I would use alt="item" or
>alt="bullet" or something like that. Wouldn't you? Or would you explain
>all the details of the bullet image?

I wouldn’t. HTML5 (thankfully) returned type (among others). With HTML 4,
we relied on CSS instead.

>>Still, if you came
>>across a subtle background of a seashell pattern on a web site about
>>coral
>>plant life, would you really want to be notified that the designer used a
>>repeating clip art graphic?
>
>No, not any more than I want the random words read aloud. As I wrote,
>alt="" is adequate, but definitely not because the image is purely
>decorative
>
>>>But it's an image for which alt="" is adequate, on the simple grounds
>>>that this is the only no-nonsense approach. There is no way (or at least
>>>I cannot see a way) to present the same information in a non-visual way
>>>in a similarly non-disruptive manner.
>>
>>So… You’re agreeing that this was a good example then?
>
>No, it's a poor example, because it presents the case as an example of
>purely decorative image, when it is no way near purely decorative. A
>nice image of a beautiful butterfly is purely decorative on a page that
>has absolutely nothing to do with butterflies. On a page about insects,
>it is a topical image. On a page about butterflies, even more so.

If there is an image of a butterfly on a page about insects, I would argue
it’s filler if the butterfly is never mentioned on the page.

If the content was about chaos theory, then I certainly wouldn’t provide
alt text to a pretty picture of a butterfly or a wheelchair simply because
it had something to do with Ashton Kutcher.

Users should be mindful about the use of alternate text, and using it
because it *sort of* makes sense in theory isn’t a good reason to add it.
If the conversation is about Senior Health, and you provide alt text
referring to a portrait of a septuagenarian, that isn’t helpful. However,
if you are including alternate descriptions of a 70 year old performing
yoga, there is merit due to the relationship between Seniors and Health.


>You draw such conclusions at your own risk.


Therein lies the rub though. It isn’t a risk that I am making because of a
bias, it’s established based on how the author decided the non-text
element was not worthy of the content that it is sitting next to.


>The alt text isn't even
>meant to be seen when the image is displayed.


Again, this is not accurate. "Programmatically associated text is text
whose location can be programmatically determined from the non-text
content”
(<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/text-equiv-all.html#non-text-co
ntentdef>) This implies a means of recognizing text.


>There are myriads of
>reasons, some of them rather good, why an image might have alt="" even
>though seeing it helps in understanding the page content. If there is no
>way to help a person who does not see the image the same way as the
>image may help a person who sees it, it is much better to use alt=""
>than to write something that does not help.

In the past, I’ve heard similar statements made from programmers who argue
that the camera shouldn’t be exposed to accessibility features in mobile
apps since it the camera is meant for capturing visual content. Or perhaps
how video games are rather visual, there could be no reason why a blind
person would ever play.

Proper and thoughtful addition of alternate text for relevant content can
be helpful for people in ways you might not have thought of.


>In order to explain how a photo relates to the rest of the content, or
>vice versa, normal text should be used, in running text or as an image
>caption. After all, that text would be meant for people who see the
>image, not to those that don't.


In my opinion, this is a fundamentally limited and potentially damaging
opinion regarding the purpose of accessibility.

Jon

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Sat, Aug 02 2014 8:32PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#examples-of-scenarios-where-users-benefit-from-text-alternatives-for-images

Steve et al, I don't think this list completely describes the scenario that we are concerned about. What I would like to see added is an example where a person has low vision or a cognitive disability and desires to have the alternative text of the image displayed alongside with the image AND they are NOT using text-to-speech.

While the specification allows for the alternative text to be display in this method it is not required to be a user option. It would be good to document this in the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines or other appropriate document and encourage browsers to offer this.

In the not so recent past browser manufacturers were actually criticized and call non-conformant for showing alt text along the image in a tooltip. IE use of this was actually cited as one reason of why it was not conformant to standards and should not be used. This was very unfortunate.

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Steve Faulkner
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:50 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Cc: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question about image in the alt attribute

Hi Olaf

This doesn't need to be fixed in WCAG or HTML as it is not a constraint Refer to example scenarios where alt text may be useful http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#examples-of-scenarios-where-users-benefit-from-text-alternatives-for-images

> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:43, Olaf Drümmer < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> This is one of the areas where WCAG needs fixing - accessibility is not about disabilities of user agents.
>
> Olaf
>
>
>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 10:30, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> 2014-07-31 10:56, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>>
>>>> On 31 Jul 2014, at 06:56, "Jukka K. Korpela" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's not what the alt attribute is for. It is to be presented when the image is not displayed. It is ALTernative.
>>>
>>> I think you are misunderstanding something here. It is never about what is presented, it is always about what can be perceived. Furthermore supporting more than one channel (e.g. text to speech plus visual display) in the very same moment can be very useful. All this is not about "either or", it is about options (a minimal set of options, more is always OK), and each user should have mechanisms available to make use of these options in any fashion and combination.
>>
>> "For user agents that cannot display images, forms, or applets, this attribute specifies alternate text."
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-alt
>>
>> "alt - Replacement text for use when images are not available"
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#attr-img-alt
>>
>> The alt attribute has a job to do (to act as a replacement for an image). Trying to make it handle other affairs as well, no matter how relevant they might be in some contexts, disturbs it in doing its job.
>>
>> Yucca
>>
>> >> >> list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> > > list messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: Jared Smith
Date: Sat, Aug 02 2014 9:03PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Jonathan Avila wrote:

> What I would like to see added is an example
> where a person has low vision or a cognitive
> disability and desires to have the alternative
> text of the image displayed alongside with the
> image AND they are NOT using text-to-speech.

It is called *ALTERNATIVE* text for a reason. This situation would
morph alt into a type of supplementary or advisory text. The title
attribute (or better yet, actual screen text) matches much closer to
what you are seeking in this situation. If title is not sufficient,
let's come up with something different. But the idea that we should
change the purpose of "alternative text" to be "alternative text plus
some other stuff that some users might benefit from" is very
dangerous.

Also dangerous is the notion that the alt attribute should be used as
some sort of identifier of the presence of an image. We do, after all,
have an <img> element which does this. If a screen reader doesn't
identify the presence of images with alt="" (or more commonly, no alt
attribute) in any way, then this is a screen reader deficiency. Let's
not redefine and morph the alt attribute to do something that user
agents can and should do on their own.

Jared

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Sat, Aug 02 2014 9:15PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

[Jared wrote] It is called *ALTERNATIVE* text for a reason. This situation would morph alt into a type of supplementary or advisory text.

I have to disagree. I am not asking for any supplementary information or anything different from what is already in the alt. I'm not asking for an additional analysis of the image -- simply asking for the replacement text to be displayed along with the image. The assumption that people make is that if you can see the image then you don't need the alternative and if you have a visual impairment or cognitive disability then you'll be using text-to-speech. The fact is that many people with low vision may enlarge the text and read a site but may not be able to see the image well enough to see it and yet the alternative that should be available for them is not available but is with a screen reader or is available if they turn off all images on the page. I'm pretty confident that most people with visual impairments are not using text-to-speech but would benefit from access to the alternative because they cannot perceive the fine details in the image.

[Jared wrote] But the idea that we should change the purpose of "alternative text" to be "alternative text plus some other stuff that some users might benefit from" is very dangerous.

I never suggested anything of the sort. I'm only asking for the image's replacement alternative text to easily be displayed. Currently you have to install plug-ins to access this on the desktop and on mobile devices these plug-ins don't exist.

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 11:04 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question about image in the alt attribute

Jonathan Avila wrote:

> What I would like to see added is an example where a person has low
> vision or a cognitive disability and desires to have the alternative
> text of the image displayed alongside with the image AND they are NOT
> using text-to-speech.

It is called *ALTERNATIVE* text for a reason. This situation would morph alt into a type of supplementary or advisory text. The title attribute (or better yet, actual screen text) matches much closer to what you are seeking in this situation. If title is not sufficient, let's come up with something different. But the idea that we should change the purpose of "alternative text" to be "alternative text plus some other stuff that some users might benefit from" is very dangerous.

Also dangerous is the notion that the alt attribute should be used as some sort of identifier of the presence of an image. We do, after all, have an <img> element which does this. If a screen reader doesn't identify the presence of images with alt="" (or more commonly, no alt
attribute) in any way, then this is a screen reader deficiency. Let's not redefine and morph the alt attribute to do something that user agents can and should do on their own.

Jared

From: John Foliot
Date: Sat, Aug 02 2014 11:36PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | Next message →

Jonathan Avila wrote:
>
> [Jared wrote] But the idea that we should change the purpose of
> "alternative text" to be "alternative text plus some other stuff that
> some users might benefit from" is very dangerous.
>
> I never suggested anything of the sort. I'm only asking for the
> image's replacement alternative text to easily be displayed. Currently
> you have to install plug-ins to access this on the desktop and on
> mobile devices these plug-ins don't exist.
>

Then this is a problem with the platform and user-agents. Since mobile
browsers really don't support a plug-in architecture, it would seem that
filing a bug with the browser vendors would be the next step.

I will suggest that this is, in many ways, the same problem that we have
with @longdesc (basically Jonathan wants an @shortdesc :-) ) - we need/want
that user-agents can be user-configured to visibly expose data that is in
the DOM, but not natively "visible" on screen (i.e. the default is "off" but
can be turned on by the individual user). To my mind there is no reason why
a browser could not provide these types of user-configuration settings to
signal this information to the individual end user, but it would take
convincing the browser vendors that the need exists, and is prevalent enough
to warrant the work. Here again, filing bugs would help kick the process
off, and at Mozilla at least, the general public can in theory "vote-up"
bugs.

JF

From: Karl Groves
Date: Tue, Aug 05 2014 12:08PM
Subject: Re: Question about image in the alt attribute
← Previous message | No next message

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 1:36 AM, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I will suggest that this is, in many ways, the same problem that we have
> with @longdesc (basically Jonathan wants an @shortdesc :-) )

oh no you di'int!


--

Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829

Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks

www.tenon.io