WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image

for

Number of posts in this thread: 15 (In chronological order)

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2018 4:03PM
Subject: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
No previous message | Next message →

All,

I’ve searched HTML / ARIA / WCAG documentation for a solution to this problem with no joy. Hopefully I’m just missing something.

USE CASE: Graphical content (typically, an image, but it could be SVG, etc.) representing text for which the text is the semantic content. Another way to put it: cases where the content’s semantics do not match its encoding.

It’s the same problem as text art (text content representing images), but in the opposite direction (content encoded as images but representing text).

Examples include:

- Stylized text (e.g., text that has been converted to an image for use as a stylized heading). Think of a classic “ransom note” style - that is, phrases made from words that have been cut from a newspaper.

- Scanned documents converted to HTML in which OCR “suspects” are retained as small inline images

- Illuminated characters

- Ligatures

- Cases in which the usage implies representation of the “actual” text rather than descriptive “alt” text. Such a case might be the use of organization logos inline in a sentence. Example: “How [Accenture logo] reduces risks." In this case, the Accenture logo should clearly be represented to AT as “Accenture” for the purposes of reading the sentence - otherwise a reader might get the impression that use of the Accenture LOGO itself can "reduce risks”, which is unlikely to be what the author was trying to imply.

In PDF we have a concept of “ActualText” which meets this need. In fact, in PDF a Figure structure element can possess both “Alt” _and_ “ActualText” values. Ideally AT would be able to represent either/both as appropriate.

But for now my question is: what’s the accessible HTML thing to do in such cases? It seems to me as if HTML's model just doesn’t adequately address such cases at all; that’s where I’d like to hear some input.

Thanks,

Duff Johnson

Independent Consultant
PDF Association Executive Director
ISO 32000 (PDF) Intl. Project Co-Leader & US Chair
ISO 14289 (PDF/UA) Intl. Project Leader & US Chair

p +1.617.283.4226
e = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
w http://duff-johnson.com
l http://www.linkedin.com/in/duffjohnson/

From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2018 6:29PM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm guessing you're not talking about images that represent text, because
if you went through WCAG, you would have hit 1.1.1 as your first encounter,
then 1.4.5 a little bit later. However, your "accenture logo" example
seems to be along those lines. In that case, what you probably *don't*
want is

<p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt="accenture"> reduces risks</p>

because as you walk the DOM with AT, you'll hear "How graphic accenture
reduces risks". The word "graphic" is confusing in this case. It sounds
like you want the image to be treated as text. If the role="text" had been
implemented (I think it only exists in webkit), then something like this
would have worked:

<p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt="accenture" role="text"> reduces risks</p>

You'd hear, "How accenture reduces risks" without the "graphic" because you
would have changed the role of the image. But role="text" is not a
documented role (yet?).

So, if you want the image displayed for sighted users, but hidden from AT
users, *and* you need substitute text for the image, you might need
something like this:

<p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt=""> <span
class="sr-only">accenture</span> reduces risks</p>

So the image itself would be hidden from AT because of the empty alt text
but then you'd have visually hidden text for the AT to read instead of the
image. The visually hidden <span> would essentially be your "actual text"
in PDF parlance. But there's nothing built in to HTML to give you this.
You'd have to code it manually with separate elements.

This works well enough with NVDA and JAWS but will have a slight problem
with VoiceOver on iOS (and possibly Mac, but I don't have a Mac to test
it). VoiceOver will stop at each element so as you swipe right it'll stop
on "How", then "accenture", then "reduces risk". That's not ideal. You
can fix this with the aforementioned (not spec'ed) role="text".

<p role="text">How <img src="logo.jpg" alt=""> <span
class="sr-only">accenture</span> reduces risks</p>

This treats the entire <p> and its children as if it were one element so
VoiceOver reads the whole thing. That's kind of a hack workaround for
VoiceOver. NVDA and JAWS will probably ignore role="text" but you'd want
to test it.

But I guess the short answer (if you skip my long preamble above) to your
original question is that there isn't an "actual text" type of attribute or
role for HTML.

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Fri, Jul 27 2018 7:35AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Glen,

> I'm guessing you're not talking about images that represent text, because
> if you went through WCAG, you would have hit 1.1.1 as your first encounter,
> then 1.4.5 a little bit later.

I do not believe these two clauses address my use-case.

1.1.1 doesn’t really reference my case, in my view, and (as you point out) even if it did there’s no means in HTML to achieve it.

1.4.5 is pertinent, but it tells me that I must avoid the problem, it offers no clues on addressing it when it occurs.

> However, your "accenture logo" example
> seems to be along those lines. In that case, what you probably *don't*
> want is
>
> <p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt="accenture"> reduces risks</p>
>
> because as you walk the DOM with AT, you'll hear "How graphic accenture
> reduces risks". The word "graphic" is confusing in this case. It sounds
> like you want the image to be treated as text.

Bingo.

> If the role="text" had been
> implemented (I think it only exists in webkit), then something like this
> would have worked:
>
> <p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt="accenture" role="text"> reduces risks</p>
>
> You'd hear, "How accenture reduces risks" without the "graphic" because you
> would have changed the role of the image. But role="text" is not a
> documented role (yet?).

Very helpful!!! I was not aware of role = text.. but as you say, it doesn’t appear to be a documented role at this point. There’s just Steve’s excellent suggestion for it from… back in 2011!

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2011Apr/0007.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2011Apr/0007.html>
> So, if you want the image displayed for sighted users, but hidden from AT
> users, *and* you need substitute text for the image, you might need
> something like this:
>
> <p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt=""> <span
> class="sr-only">accenture</span> reduces risks</p>

Actually, in principle I would prefer the image to be available to all users (since images can legitimately possess both “alt” and “ActualText”). AT would then use ActualText by default when it exists, but the image (and its alt) would remain available to a query.

> So the image itself would be hidden from AT because of the empty alt text
> but then you'd have visually hidden text for the AT to read instead of the
> image. The visually hidden <span> would essentially be your "actual text"
> in PDF parlance. But there's nothing built in to HTML to give you this.
> You'd have to code it manually with separate elements.

So I see...

> This works well enough with NVDA and JAWS but will have a slight problem
> with VoiceOver on iOS (and possibly Mac, but I don't have a Mac to test
> it). VoiceOver will stop at each element so as you swipe right it'll stop
> on "How", then "accenture", then "reduces risk". That's not ideal. You
> can fix this with the aforementioned (not spec'ed) role="text".
>
> <p role="text">How <img src="logo.jpg" alt=""> <span
> class="sr-only">accenture</span> reduces risks</p>
>
> This treats the entire <p> and its children as if it were one element so
> VoiceOver reads the whole thing. That's kind of a hack workaround for
> VoiceOver. NVDA and JAWS will probably ignore role="text" but you'd want
> to test it.

Yeah, kind of a hack… but very interesting; thank you for the detailed explanation!

> But I guess the short answer (if you skip my long preamble above) to your
> original question is that there isn't an "actual text" type of attribute or
> role for HTML.

Bummer. This is worth fixing, not least because it seems one cannot really achieve (useful) conformance with WCAG 2.1, 1.1.1 without it.

Duff.

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Fri, Jul 27 2018 7:50AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

>
> But role="text" is not a
> documented role (yet?).
>

It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it should be
implemented.

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 27 July 2018 at 14:35, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi Glen,
>
> > I'm guessing you're not talking about images that represent text, because
> > if you went through WCAG, you would have hit 1.1.1 as your first
> encounter,
> > then 1.4.5 a little bit later.
>
> I do not believe these two clauses address my use-case.
>
> 1.1.1 doesn’t really reference my case, in my view, and (as you point out)
> even if it did there’s no means in HTML to achieve it.
>
> 1.4.5 is pertinent, but it tells me that I must avoid the problem, it
> offers no clues on addressing it when it occurs.
>
> > However, your "accenture logo" example
> > seems to be along those lines. In that case, what you probably *don't*
> > want is
> >
> > <p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt="accenture"> reduces risks</p>
> >
> > because as you walk the DOM with AT, you'll hear "How graphic accenture
> > reduces risks". The word "graphic" is confusing in this case. It sounds
> > like you want the image to be treated as text.
>
> Bingo.
>
> > If the role="text" had been
> > implemented (I think it only exists in webkit), then something like this
> > would have worked:
> >
> > <p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt="accenture" role="text"> reduces
> risks</p>
> >
> > You'd hear, "How accenture reduces risks" without the "graphic" because
> you
> > would have changed the role of the image. But role="text" is not a
> > documented role (yet?).
>
> Very helpful!!! I was not aware of role = text.. but as you say, it
> doesn’t appear to be a documented role at this point. There’s just Steve’s
> excellent suggestion for it from… back in 2011!
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2011Apr/0007.html <
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2011Apr/0007.html>
> > So, if you want the image displayed for sighted users, but hidden from AT
> > users, *and* you need substitute text for the image, you might need
> > something like this:
> >
> > <p>How <img src="logo.jpg" alt=""> <span
> > class="sr-only">accenture</span> reduces risks</p>
>
> Actually, in principle I would prefer the image to be available to all
> users (since images can legitimately possess both “alt” and “ActualText”).
> AT would then use ActualText by default when it exists, but the image (and
> its alt) would remain available to a query.
>
> > So the image itself would be hidden from AT because of the empty alt text
> > but then you'd have visually hidden text for the AT to read instead of
> the
> > image. The visually hidden <span> would essentially be your "actual
> text"
> > in PDF parlance. But there's nothing built in to HTML to give you this.
> > You'd have to code it manually with separate elements.
>
> So I see...
>
> > This works well enough with NVDA and JAWS but will have a slight problem
> > with VoiceOver on iOS (and possibly Mac, but I don't have a Mac to test
> > it). VoiceOver will stop at each element so as you swipe right it'll
> stop
> > on "How", then "accenture", then "reduces risk". That's not ideal. You
> > can fix this with the aforementioned (not spec'ed) role="text".
> >
> > <p role="text">How <img src="logo.jpg" alt=""> <span
> > class="sr-only">accenture</span> reduces risks</p>
> >
> > This treats the entire <p> and its children as if it were one element so
> > VoiceOver reads the whole thing. That's kind of a hack workaround for
> > VoiceOver. NVDA and JAWS will probably ignore role="text" but you'd want
> > to test it.
>
> Yeah, kind of a hack… but very interesting; thank you for the detailed
> explanation!
>
> > But I guess the short answer (if you skip my long preamble above) to your
> > original question is that there isn't an "actual text" type of attribute
> or
> > role for HTML.
>
> Bummer. This is worth fixing, not least because it seems one cannot really
> achieve (useful) conformance with WCAG 2.1, 1.1.1 without it.
>
> Duff.
>
>
>
> > > > >

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Fri, Jul 27 2018 7:56AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Steve,

>> But role="text" is not a
>> documented role (yet?).
>
> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it should be
> implemented.

Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.

Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)

Duff.

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Fri, Jul 27 2018 10:25PM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
If you present something as an image to some users you should present
it to all users.
Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your undying
love for nacho fries:
"I heart nacho fries"
("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style / approach.
You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen reader
user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to the
sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.

If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have just
written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen reader
user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed with an
image.

If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and replace
it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with cognitive
impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet to
see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen reader.


On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
>>> But role="text" is not a
>>> documented role (yet?).
>>
>> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it should be
>> implemented.
>
> Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
>
> Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
>
> Duff.
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Jul 27 2018 10:54PM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

One other use, albeit it's a workaround for a VoiceOver feature, is to
prevent VoiceOver from stopping on every element if you want an entire
sentence to be read as one. JAWS and NVDA don't have this issue but
VoiceOver does. role="text" solves the problem for now.

We also had another problem with VoiceOver when creating accessible graphs,
and I can't remember the specific problem off the top of my head, but we
consulted with a high level accessibility person at Apple (I can provide
the name privately if needed) and we were told to use role="text" to fix
the problem. It worked great.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I have yet to
> see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
> other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen reader.
>
>

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Sat, Jul 28 2018 12:40AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:

Images of text
https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#images-of-text
Inline images
https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
> If you present something as an image to some users you should present
> it to all users.
> Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your undying
> love for nacho fries:
> "I heart nacho fries"
> ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style / approach.
> You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
> literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen reader
> user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
> Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to the
> sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
> used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
>
> If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have just
> written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen reader
> user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed with an
> image.
>
> If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and replace
> it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
> mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
> reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with cognitive
> impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
> We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet to
> see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
> other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen reader.
>
>
> On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> >>> But role="text" is not a
> >>> documented role (yet?).
> >>
> >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it should be
> >> implemented.
> >
> > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
> >
> > Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
> >
> > Duff.
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > >

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Sat, Jul 28 2018 7:29AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

Just a friendly reminder that accessibility stretches past screen readers.
I can't test right now, but this could cause headaches for people who
magnify the screen versus using a screen reader, depending on how the text
is hidden.

Ryan E. Benson

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 02:40 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:
>
> Images of text
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#images-of-text
> Inline images
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> Current Standards Work @W3C
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;
>
> On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
> > If you present something as an image to some users you should present
> > it to all users.
> > Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your undying
> > love for nacho fries:
> > "I heart nacho fries"
> > ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style /
> approach.
> > You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
> > literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen reader
> > user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
> > Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to the
> > sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
> > used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
> >
> > If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have just
> > written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen reader
> > user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed with an
> > image.
> >
> > If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and replace
> > it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
> > mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
> > reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with cognitive
> > impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
> > We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet to
> > see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
> > other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen reader.
> >
> >
> > On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > >>> But role="text" is not a
> > >>> documented role (yet?).
> > >>
> > >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it should
> be
> > >> implemented.
> > >
> > > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
> > >
> > > Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
> > >
> > > Duff.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Sat, Jul 28 2018 7:34AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Ryan, that's why it says in the spec:

" Sometimes, an image only contains text, and the purpose of the image is
to display text using visual effects and /or fonts. It is *strongly*
recommended that text styled using CSS be used, but if this is not
possible, provide the same text in the alt attribute as is in the image. "
https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#images-of-text

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 28 July 2018 at 14:29, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Just a friendly reminder that accessibility stretches past screen readers.
> I can't test right now, but this could cause headaches for people who
> magnify the screen versus using a screen reader, depending on how the text
> is hidden.
>
> Ryan E. Benson
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 02:40 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:
> >
> > Images of text
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
> html#images-of-text
> > Inline images
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > Current Standards Work @W3C
> > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
> standards-work-at-w3c/>
> >
> > On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
> > > If you present something as an image to some users you should present
> > > it to all users.
> > > Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your undying
> > > love for nacho fries:
> > > "I heart nacho fries"
> > > ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style /
> > approach.
> > > You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
> > > literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen reader
> > > user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
> > > Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to the
> > > sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
> > > used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
> > >
> > > If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have just
> > > written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen reader
> > > user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed with an
> > > image.
> > >
> > > If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and replace
> > > it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
> > > mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
> > > reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with cognitive
> > > impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
> > > We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet to
> > > see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
> > > other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen reader.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > > Hi Steve,
> > > >
> > > >>> But role="text" is not a
> > > >>> documented role (yet?).
> > > >>
> > > >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it should
> > be
> > > >> implemented.
> > > >
> > > > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
> > > >
> > > > Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Duff.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Sat, Jul 28 2018 7:45AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

Steve, I wasn't specifically talking about that part or to you, apologies
if you thought that. I was commenting on how people were saying how it
would work with JAWS and NVDA, but Voice Over may have issues.

Ryan E. Benson

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 09:35 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi Ryan, that's why it says in the spec:
>
> " Sometimes, an image only contains text, and the purpose of the image is
> to display text using visual effects and /or fonts. It is *strongly*
> recommended that text styled using CSS be used, but if this is not
> possible, provide the same text in the alt attribute as is in the image. "
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#images-of-text
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> Current Standards Work @W3C
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;
>
> On 28 July 2018 at 14:29, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Just a friendly reminder that accessibility stretches past screen
> readers.
> > I can't test right now, but this could cause headaches for people who
> > magnify the screen versus using a screen reader, depending on how the
> text
> > is hidden.
> >
> > Ryan E. Benson
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 02:40 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:
> > >
> > > Images of text
> > > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
> > html#images-of-text
> > > Inline images
> > >
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > SteveF
> > > Current Standards Work @W3C
> > > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
> > standards-work-at-w3c/>
> > >
> > > On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
> > > > If you present something as an image to some users you should present
> > > > it to all users.
> > > > Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your undying
> > > > love for nacho fries:
> > > > "I heart nacho fries"
> > > > ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style /
> > > approach.
> > > > You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
> > > > literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen reader
> > > > user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
> > > > Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to the
> > > > sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
> > > > used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
> > > >
> > > > If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have just
> > > > written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen reader
> > > > user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed with
> an
> > > > image.
> > > >
> > > > If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and
> replace
> > > > it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
> > > > mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
> > > > reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with
> cognitive
> > > > impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
> > > > We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet to
> > > > see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
> > > > other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen
> reader.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > > > Hi Steve,
> > > > >
> > > > >>> But role="text" is not a
> > > > >>> documented role (yet?).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it
> should
> > > be
> > > > >> implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Duff.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Sat, Jul 28 2018 7:50AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

Ryan, no worries, and I agree with your point :-)

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 28 July 2018 at 14:45, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Steve, I wasn't specifically talking about that part or to you, apologies
> if you thought that. I was commenting on how people were saying how it
> would work with JAWS and NVDA, but Voice Over may have issues.
>
> Ryan E. Benson
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 09:35 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ryan, that's why it says in the spec:
> >
> > " Sometimes, an image only contains text, and the purpose of the image is
> > to display text using visual effects and /or fonts. It is *strongly*
> > recommended that text styled using CSS be used, but if this is not
> > possible, provide the same text in the alt attribute as is in the image.
> "
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
> html#images-of-text
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > Current Standards Work @W3C
> > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
> standards-work-at-w3c/>
> >
> > On 28 July 2018 at 14:29, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> > > Just a friendly reminder that accessibility stretches past screen
> > readers.
> > > I can't test right now, but this could cause headaches for people who
> > > magnify the screen versus using a screen reader, depending on how the
> > text
> > > is hidden.
> > >
> > > Ryan E. Benson
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 02:40 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:
> > > >
> > > > Images of text
> > > > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
> > > html#images-of-text
> > > > Inline images
> > > >
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > SteveF
> > > > Current Standards Work @W3C
> > > > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
> > > standards-work-at-w3c/>
> > > >
> > > > On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> > > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
> > > > > If you present something as an image to some users you should
> present
> > > > > it to all users.
> > > > > Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your
> undying
> > > > > love for nacho fries:
> > > > > "I heart nacho fries"
> > > > > ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style /
> > > > approach.
> > > > > You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
> > > > > literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen
> reader
> > > > > user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
> > > > > Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to
> the
> > > > > sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
> > > > > used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have
> just
> > > > > written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen
> reader
> > > > > user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed with
> > an
> > > > > image.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and
> > replace
> > > > > it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
> > > > > mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
> > > > > reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with
> > cognitive
> > > > > impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
> > > > > We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet
> to
> > > > > see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
> > > > > other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen
> > reader.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Steve,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> But role="text" is not a
> > > > > >>> documented role (yet?).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > >> implemented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Duff.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Sat, Jul 28 2018 7:55AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

I wonder if an <svg> element with <text> and role="presentation" would
be interpreted by screen readers are plain text.
SVG icons can be resized and the <text> element can be styled, so for
sighted users SVGs are much more accessible.
It's getting awfully hacky admittedly.



On 7/28/18, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Ryan, no worries, and I agree with your point :-)
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> Current Standards Work @W3C
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;
>
> On 28 July 2018 at 14:45, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Steve, I wasn't specifically talking about that part or to you, apologies
>> if you thought that. I was commenting on how people were saying how it
>> would work with JAWS and NVDA, but Voice Over may have issues.
>>
>> Ryan E. Benson
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 09:35 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Ryan, that's why it says in the spec:
>> >
>> > " Sometimes, an image only contains text, and the purpose of the image
>> > is
>> > to display text using visual effects and /or fonts. It is *strongly*
>> > recommended that text styled using CSS be used, but if this is not
>> > possible, provide the same text in the alt attribute as is in the image.
>> "
>> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
>> html#images-of-text
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > SteveF
>> > Current Standards Work @W3C
>> > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
>> standards-work-at-w3c/>
>> >
>> > On 28 July 2018 at 14:29, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just a friendly reminder that accessibility stretches past screen
>> > readers.
>> > > I can't test right now, but this could cause headaches for people who
>> > > magnify the screen versus using a screen reader, depending on how the
>> > text
>> > > is hidden.
>> > >
>> > > Ryan E. Benson
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 02:40 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:
>> > > >
>> > > > Images of text
>> > > > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
>> > > html#images-of-text
>> > > > Inline images
>> > > >
>> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards
>> > > >
>> > > > SteveF
>> > > > Current Standards Work @W3C
>> > > > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
>> > > standards-work-at-w3c/>
>> > > >
>> > > > On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
>> > > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
>> > > > > If you present something as an image to some users you should
>> present
>> > > > > it to all users.
>> > > > > Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your
>> undying
>> > > > > love for nacho fries:
>> > > > > "I heart nacho fries"
>> > > > > ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style /
>> > > > approach.
>> > > > > You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
>> > > > > literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen
>> reader
>> > > > > user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
>> > > > > Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image" to
>> the
>> > > > > sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user is
>> > > > > used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have
>> just
>> > > > > written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen
>> reader
>> > > > > user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed
>> > > > > with
>> > an
>> > > > > image.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and
>> > replace
>> > > > > it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person that
>> > > > > mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
>> > > > > reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with
>> > cognitive
>> > > > > impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
>> > > > > We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have yet
>> to
>> > > > > see a convincing example where this role can be used for a purpose
>> > > > > other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen
>> > reader.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> > > > > > Hi Steve,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>> But role="text" is not a
>> > > > > >>> documented role (yet?).
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it
>> > should
>> > > > be
>> > > > > >> implemented.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Duff.
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Sat, Jul 28 2018 8:20AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | Next message →

>I wonder if an <svg> element with <text> and role="presentation" would
>be interpreted by screen readers are plain text.

forked and made this rather elaborate SVG text example as a test, seems to
work fine after sprinkling some ARIA on it.

demo https://s.codepen.io/stevef/debug/wxPojo
codepen: https://codepen.io/stevef/pen/wxPojo


--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 28 July 2018 at 14:55, Birkir R. Gunnarsson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> I wonder if an <svg> element with <text> and role="presentation" would
> be interpreted by screen readers are plain text.
> SVG icons can be resized and the <text> element can be styled, so for
> sighted users SVGs are much more accessible.
> It's getting awfully hacky admittedly.
>
>
>
> On 7/28/18, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Ryan, no worries, and I agree with your point :-)
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > Current Standards Work @W3C
> > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
> standards-work-at-w3c/>
> >
> > On 28 July 2018 at 14:45, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve, I wasn't specifically talking about that part or to you,
> apologies
> >> if you thought that. I was commenting on how people were saying how it
> >> would work with JAWS and NVDA, but Voice Over may have issues.
> >>
> >> Ryan E. Benson
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 09:35 Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Ryan, that's why it says in the spec:
> >> >
> >> > " Sometimes, an image only contains text, and the purpose of the image
> >> > is
> >> > to display text using visual effects and /or fonts. It is *strongly*
> >> > recommended that text styled using CSS be used, but if this is not
> >> > possible, provide the same text in the alt attribute as is in the
> image.
> >> "
> >> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
> >> html#images-of-text
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > SteveF
> >> > Current Standards Work @W3C
> >> > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
> >> standards-work-at-w3c/>
> >> >
> >> > On 28 July 2018 at 14:29, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Just a friendly reminder that accessibility stretches past screen
> >> > readers.
> >> > > I can't test right now, but this could cause headaches for people
> who
> >> > > magnify the screen versus using a screen reader, depending on how
> the
> >> > text
> >> > > is hidden.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ryan E. Benson
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018, 02:40 Steve Faulkner <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Images of text
> >> > > > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
> >> > > html#images-of-text
> >> > > > Inline images
> >> > > >
> >> > https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.
> html#inline-images
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards
> >> > > >
> >> > > > SteveF
> >> > > > Current Standards Work @W3C
> >> > > > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-
> >> > > standards-work-at-w3c/>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 28 July 2018 at 05:25, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> >> > > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I was one of the people criticizing role="text".
> >> > > > > If you present something as an image to some users you should
> >> present
> >> > > > > it to all users.
> >> > > > > Suppose you feel the need to use a heart icon to express your
> >> undying
> >> > > > > love for nacho fries:
> >> > > > > "I heart nacho fries"
> >> > > > > ("heart" being an image of a heart"), you chose a certain style
> /
> >> > > > approach.
> >> > > > > You can make it accessible by adding alt="love" if you want the
> >> > > > > literal meaning or alt="heart" if you want to inform a screen
> >> reader
> >> > > > > user that a heart icon stands for love (or, in this case, lust).
> >> > > > > Yes, the screen reader will add the word "graphics" or "image"
> to
> >> the
> >> > > > > sentence (depending on which one you use). A screen reader user
> is
> >> > > > > used to that, it's the standard for how an icon is presented.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If you wanted to simply express your love as text you could have
> >> just
> >> > > > > written "I love nacho fries". The cognitive load for a screen
> >> reader
> >> > > > > user is no greater than that of other users who see text mixed
> >> > > > > with
> >> > an
> >> > > > > image.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If you are really worried mark the image as presentational and
> >> > replace
> >> > > > > it with a visually hidden text,, or tell your content person
> that
> >> > > > > mixing text and images like that can present a problem to screen
> >> > > > > reader users; possibly others as well, what about users with
> >> > cognitive
> >> > > > > impairments, they may benefit or be harmed by this approach.
> >> > > > > We don't need ARIA to fix what is not really a problem. I have
> yet
> >> to
> >> > > > > see a convincing example where this role can be used for a
> purpose
> >> > > > > other than avoiding the word "graphic" to be added by a screen
> >> > reader.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 7/27/18, Duff Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >> > > > > > Hi Steve,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >>> But role="text" is not a
> >> > > > > >>> documented role (yet?).
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> It was dumped from ARIA as there was not consensus on how it
> >> > should
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > >> implemented.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Boo. Hiss. This should get another look.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Or… add an “ActualText” attribute to HTML 5.3.. :-)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Duff.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > >

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Mon, Jul 30 2018 7:28AM
Subject: Re: When "Alt" is not the semantically-correct representation of an image
← Previous message | No next message

Hi Steve,

Thanks for these links. I’m not sure they really address all of the cases I described… but perhaps I’m thinking more generally about reuse, and not specifically about reuse in the accessibility context.

It continues to bother me that “alt” is made to do double-duty as both a “description” and as “the significant semantic content”, and that there’s no programmatically-ascertainable distinction between these cases.

Apart from my more-generalized reuse concerns, that feels like a setup for unequal access to content. I wish HTML could do better.

Duff.

> On Jul 28, 2018, at 02:40, Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> The HTML spec includes advice/examples along these lines:
>
> Images of text
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#images-of-text
> Inline images
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html/semantics-embedded-content.html#inline-images