E-mail List Archives
Thread: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)
From: Campbell, John
Date: Tue, May 31 2016 12:41PM
Subject: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
No previous message | Next message →
Hello,
I was looking at an online directories that have Names and Data next to or
under the image of the person. Do you think they need to Alt Tagged anyway
or are the images considered decorative?
--
John R. Campbell, MS, ATP, RET
Director of Accessibility & Access
Lehigh Carbon Community College
From: Alex Hall
Date: Tue, May 31 2016 12:49PM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Personally, I'd always tag the images. No, doing so likely won't offer
additional details to the user, but which would you rather hear while
browsing:
John Smith
img_0040297 at 2016-04-01 8:27, image
or
John Smith
Picture of John Smith, image
If nothing else, this tells the user they aren't missing details by not
seeing the image, and that the image is just there as a visual reference.
That is, it isn't a link or clickable item they need to interact with to do
something with John.
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Campbell, John < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was looking at an online directories that have Names and Data next to or
> under the image of the person. Do you think they need to Alt Tagged anyway
> or are the images considered decorative?
>
> --
> John R. Campbell, MS, ATP, RET
> Director of Accessibility & Access
> Lehigh Carbon Community College
> > > > >
--
Alex Hall
Automatic Distributors, IT department
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Tue, May 31 2016 1:00PM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Our office always tags them and we try to minimize the length of the Alt-text to avoid redundency as much as possible.
I found from my work with people with low vision that they often can see that there's a photo/graphic, but can't make out the details and want reassurance that they aren't missing anything.
Another way to think about it: I doubt anyone could file a complaint or lawsuit for including the Alt-Text, but they might be able to if there wasn't Alt-text.
--Bevi Chagnon
www.PubCom.com
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Tue, May 31 2016 1:41PM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | Next message →
I think it would be difficult to claim the pictures are just decorative. I suspect they are present to allow someone using the directory to be able to identify the person.
I was going to suggest that alt="" would be ok since the information is redundant due to the name--but I guess that doesn't make sense. If you removed all the names and replaced them with just the images, the directory would be pretty worthless.
And it appears Bevi answered the question that might go something like "If someone uses the alt text to identify the picture, then they can't be using the picture to identify the people. So why include the alt text?" Apparently, as long as the alt text identifies the image, the user at least as has the option to use the picture for the intended user task--to identify the person. It really isn't for me to say how they go about doing that or what degree of disability they need to have before they would use an alt text. Thanks for the information, Bevi.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, May 31 2016 1:58PM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't think there's one "best" answer to this question. Nothing requires
that alternative text be located in the alt attribute. Text that is
adjacent to or otherwise associated with the image can be sufficient (in
this case the image would be given alt=""). If you place the text in the
alt attribute, you will cause repetition of content. If you don't, then the
user may not be aware that the image is present.
Personally, I tend to lean more toward alt="" in these cases because the
repetition negatively affects all screen reader users whereas it is less
likely that a screen reader user may want to utilize the image itself (and
even then, they still could find and access the image even with alt=""). If
the presence of the image is important, then repetition may be a better
approach.
Of note, however, is that if the image is the only thing within a link,
then it MUST have alternative text, even if that alternative text is
redundant with adjacent text.
If it is ever supported, <figure> and <figcaption> would be a way to
associate the text to the image in a way that avoids repetition, yet still
provides an indication that the image is present and conveys content.
Jared
From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Tue, May 31 2016 2:00PM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree that they need alternative text. Redundancy can be softened by including "portrait of Sue Smith" on, say, a biography page, or "user icon: Sue Smith" for a directory where that image is used on posts or comments elsewhere in the site. This helps explain to someone with no sight why it's being repeated, and adds clarity for low-vision users. The one time I didn't recommend this is when the portrait had a caption (before figcaption was a thing) that was the name. It seemed a little much to have "portrait of Sue Smith. Sue Smith. Sue Smith."
Sarah E. Bourne
Director of IT Accessibility, MassIT
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/MassIT
From: _mallory
Date: Wed, Jun 01 2016 2:17AM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | Next message →
I waffled on this with product lists. I ended up using alts but really
wish I hadn't now that I look back. I should have used alt="".
This is what screen reader users get today, maybe they love this but it
drives me batty:
"Foto: GEHEUGENKAART SANDISK MICRO SDHC CLASS4 32GB +ADAPTER"
GEHEUGENKAART SANDISK MICRO SDHC CLASS4 32GB +ADAPTER
(both are inside a single link to the product's page).
Certainly a list of human names sounds less irritating than product
names supplied from a central european manufacturer database, but
still... the length of that compared to "Sue Smith" pushes me even
closer to alt="" for those images.
But I'm quite interested to hear if people, esp low-vision, would still
really rather have that alt attr filled. If so, I'd sleep better :P
_mallory
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:41:34PM +0000, Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> I think it would be difficult to claim the pictures are just decorative. I suspect they are present to allow someone using the directory to be able to identify the person.
>
> I was going to suggest that alt="" would be ok since the information is redundant due to the name--but I guess that doesn't make sense. If you removed all the names and replaced them with just the images, the directory would be pretty worthless.
>
> And it appears Bevi answered the question that might go something like "If someone uses the alt text to identify the picture, then they can't be using the picture to identify the people. So why include the alt text?" Apparently, as long as the alt text identifies the image, the user at least as has the option to use the picture for the intended user task--to identify the person. It really isn't for me to say how they go about doing that or what degree of disability they need to have before they would use an alt text. Thanks for the information, Bevi.
>
>
>
From: Léonie Watson
Date: Wed, Jun 01 2016 2:23AM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Not sure if this is useful, but a while ago I wrote about my take on images and alts:
http://tink.uk/text-descriptions-emotion-rich-images/
Léonie.
>
From: Mike Barlow
Date: Wed, Jun 01 2016 5:06AM
Subject: Re: Opinions/Facts on Alt Images
← Previous message | No next message
Léonie - I liked your article on emotion rich images and it made me think
about how I handle such situations.
Normally when I design a page, I advocate if an image needs to be someplace
and it is purely decorative then it should be used as a background image
(hence no alt attribute required).
If an image is NOT used as a background then it does need a non null alt
attribute.
And after reading through this thread I see no reason to change my method.
HOWEVER, what I will probably start to consider is IS this really a
"decorative" image or is it an "emotion rich" image?
Now if only there were some way for us to tell AT that this is an "emotion
rich" image vs a "content rich" image and allow users the choice of telling
AT to ignore emotion rich images or not.
*Mike Barlow*
Web Application Developer
Web Accessibility/Section 508 SME
Lancaster, Pa 17601
Office: 732.835-7557
Cell: 732.682.8226
e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Léonie Watson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Not sure if this is useful, but a while ago I wrote about my take on
> images and alts:
> http://tink.uk/text-descriptions-emotion-rich-images/
>
> Léonie.
>
> >