E-mail List Archives
Thread: If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: Larry Hudson
Date: Sun, Apr 07 2019 6:07PM
Subject: If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
No previous message | Next message →
Hi everyone! I work at a company that makes accessible documents for people
with different types of disability.
We create Easy Read documents with clear, plain language for people with low
literacy and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Each line of text has an image that illustrates the meaning of the text.
According to my interpretation of WCAG, images that do not add extra meaning
should not have alt text. It seems to me that these image descriptions will
get in the way of the meaning of the text, and make the document much longer
to read for screen reader users. However, we have found that quite a lot of
screen reader users like having descriptions of all images in a document.
A solution to this problem for HTML webpages is to include a hidden
JavaScript control so screen reader users can turn off image descriptions.
However, we also produce a lot of PDF and Word documents. I'm not sure what
the 'default' behaviour should be.
Have any of you dealt with an issue like this before?
If you're a screen reader user, would you prefer to have image descriptions
or just the text?
PS: If you're interested in reading more about this issue, I posted a thread
in the Blind subreddit
<https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/comments/b9luia/if_an_image_doesnt_add_meani
ng_should_it_have_alt/> a few days ago and have received strong opinions on
both sides.
Thanks in advance,
Larry
Larry Hudson | Content Producer | The Information Access Group
Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | Web:
<http://www.informationaccessgroup.com/>; www.informationaccessgroup.com
From: Maxability
Date: Sun, Apr 07 2019 11:02PM
Subject: Re: If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
← Previous message | Next message →
Larry,
My two cents as a accessibility consultant and also as a screen reader user.
1. Do not provide alternate text for the image, this will be a redundant
information screen reader reads twice.
2. Provide alt attribute with empty quotes so that screen reader may not
read any other text such as file name.
3. I am not sure how people react to a JS button that can turn of
alternate text for images, Would like to hear from others.
Regards - Rakesh
On 4/8/2019 5:37 AM, Larry Hudson wrote:
> Hi everyone! I work at a company that makes accessible documents for people
> with different types of disability.
>
> We create Easy Read documents with clear, plain language for people with low
> literacy and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
> Each line of text has an image that illustrates the meaning of the text.
>
> According to my interpretation of WCAG, images that do not add extra meaning
> should not have alt text. It seems to me that these image descriptions will
> get in the way of the meaning of the text, and make the document much longer
> to read for screen reader users. However, we have found that quite a lot of
> screen reader users like having descriptions of all images in a document.
>
> A solution to this problem for HTML webpages is to include a hidden
> JavaScript control so screen reader users can turn off image descriptions.
>
> However, we also produce a lot of PDF and Word documents. I'm not sure what
> the 'default' behaviour should be.
>
> Have any of you dealt with an issue like this before?
>
>
>
> If you're a screen reader user, would you prefer to have image descriptions
> or just the text?
>
>
>
> PS: If you're interested in reading more about this issue, I posted a thread
> in the Blind subreddit
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/comments/b9luia/if_an_image_doesnt_add_meani
> ng_should_it_have_alt/> a few days ago and have received strong opinions on
> both sides.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> Larry Hudson | Content Producer | The Information Access Group
>
> Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | Web:
> <http://www.informationaccessgroup.com/>; www.informationaccessgroup.com
>
>
>
> > > >
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Mon, Apr 08 2019 7:12AM
Subject: Re: If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
← Previous message | Next message →
In the PDF format, decorative images can be identified as Artifacts using
the Reading Order tool. This means that adaptive technology "doesn't see
them" and therefore we don't spend valuable time listening to Alt Text for
images that don't really add or support meaning to the content.
In the latest version of Microsoft Office 365/2016+ subscription version,
you can identify an image in a document as an "Artifact" by checking the
check box to "Mark as decorative" in the Alt Text Pane.
If you then convert that Word or PowerPoint content to tagged PDF, the
images will be Artifacts/not seen by the adaptive technology.
BUT...
If you then share that Word or PowerPoint document with someone who is not
using the latest version of Office 365/2016+ subscription they will not have
access to the fact that the images are Artifacts. The ability to mark
something in an Office 365/2016+ subscription application is NOT backward
compatible. If someone using an earlier version of Office runs the
Accessibility Checker on the file, they will get errors for the images that
are marked as Artifacts/decorative that they are missing alt text. The
person reading that content will not be able to add Alt text as the Alt text
field is not available to them because someone using a more recent version
of the application identified the images as Artifacts/decorative.
And another BUT....
This is a relatively new tool/feature of Office 365/2016+ subscription and
the adaptive technology hasn't caught up with it yet. So what we hear are
"graphic, 6 inches by 4 inches" for images marked as Artifacts/decorative
which isn't helpful when reading through the document.
On the other hand, if you add Alt text in Word like "decorative image" you
will need to sift through those images in a PDF document to make them
Artifacts...or we will have to listen to "graphic, decorative image" for
every Artifact in a PDF document that is a decorative image.
So, We are at that awkward stage where we have tools to help those of us who
are document authors but the tools are not backward compatible and the
adaptive technology has not caught up.
Am not saying don't use this feature in Office 365/2016+ subscription, but
am saying that there are currently gaps in how this information is rendered
to other versions of Office and the end-user.
I do use the ability to mark images as Artifacts/decorative in Office as I
only publish in accessible PDF format and this makes life easier and less
complicated when it comes to images that are Artifacts/decorative.
Cheers, Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Larry
Hudson
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 8:08 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
Hi everyone! I work at a company that makes accessible documents for people
with different types of disability.
We create Easy Read documents with clear, plain language for people with low
literacy and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Each line of text has an image that illustrates the meaning of the text.
According to my interpretation of WCAG, images that do not add extra meaning
should not have alt text. It seems to me that these image descriptions will
get in the way of the meaning of the text, and make the document much longer
to read for screen reader users. However, we have found that quite a lot of
screen reader users like having descriptions of all images in a document.
A solution to this problem for HTML webpages is to include a hidden
JavaScript control so screen reader users can turn off image descriptions.
However, we also produce a lot of PDF and Word documents. I'm not sure what
the 'default' behaviour should be.
Have any of you dealt with an issue like this before?
If you're a screen reader user, would you prefer to have image descriptions
or just the text?
PS: If you're interested in reading more about this issue, I posted a thread
in the Blind subreddit
<https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/comments/b9luia/if_an_image_doesnt_add_meani
ng_should_it_have_alt/> a few days ago and have received strong opinions on
both sides.
Thanks in advance,
Larry
Larry Hudson | Content Producer | The Information Access Group
Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | Web:
<http://www.informationaccessgroup.com/>; www.informationaccessgroup.com
http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
From: Isabel Holdsworth
Date: Fri, Apr 12 2019 7:41AM
Subject: Re: If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Larry,
We tend to add empty/null alt attributes ( alt="" ) to our decorative images.
If a screenreader user can already derive the meaning from the text,
and the image's alt text would only mirror what's already available,
then it would be counter-productive to repeat it.
I'm a screenreader user with a busy life, and I'd rather read a
document more quickly than listen to redundant alternative text. But
that's just a personal opinion :-)
Cheers, Isabel
On 08/04/2019, Karlen Communications < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> In the PDF format, decorative images can be identified as Artifacts using
> the Reading Order tool. This means that adaptive technology "doesn't see
> them" and therefore we don't spend valuable time listening to Alt Text for
> images that don't really add or support meaning to the content.
>
> In the latest version of Microsoft Office 365/2016+ subscription version,
> you can identify an image in a document as an "Artifact" by checking the
> check box to "Mark as decorative" in the Alt Text Pane.
>
> If you then convert that Word or PowerPoint content to tagged PDF, the
> images will be Artifacts/not seen by the adaptive technology.
>
> BUT...
>
> If you then share that Word or PowerPoint document with someone who is not
> using the latest version of Office 365/2016+ subscription they will not
> have
> access to the fact that the images are Artifacts. The ability to mark
> something in an Office 365/2016+ subscription application is NOT backward
> compatible. If someone using an earlier version of Office runs the
> Accessibility Checker on the file, they will get errors for the images that
> are marked as Artifacts/decorative that they are missing alt text. The
> person reading that content will not be able to add Alt text as the Alt
> text
> field is not available to them because someone using a more recent version
> of the application identified the images as Artifacts/decorative.
>
> And another BUT....
>
> This is a relatively new tool/feature of Office 365/2016+ subscription and
> the adaptive technology hasn't caught up with it yet. So what we hear are
> "graphic, 6 inches by 4 inches" for images marked as Artifacts/decorative
> which isn't helpful when reading through the document.
>
> On the other hand, if you add Alt text in Word like "decorative image" you
> will need to sift through those images in a PDF document to make them
> Artifacts...or we will have to listen to "graphic, decorative image" for
> every Artifact in a PDF document that is a decorative image.
>
> So, We are at that awkward stage where we have tools to help those of us
> who
> are document authors but the tools are not backward compatible and the
> adaptive technology has not caught up.
>
> Am not saying don't use this feature in Office 365/2016+ subscription, but
> am saying that there are currently gaps in how this information is rendered
> to other versions of Office and the end-user.
>
> I do use the ability to mark images as Artifacts/decorative in Office as I
> only publish in accessible PDF format and this makes life easier and less
> complicated when it comes to images that are Artifacts/decorative.
>
> Cheers, Karen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
> Larry
> Hudson
> Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 8:08 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [WebAIM] If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
>
> Hi everyone! I work at a company that makes accessible documents for people
> with different types of disability.
>
> We create Easy Read documents with clear, plain language for people with
> low
> literacy and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
> Each line of text has an image that illustrates the meaning of the text.
>
> According to my interpretation of WCAG, images that do not add extra
> meaning
> should not have alt text. It seems to me that these image descriptions will
> get in the way of the meaning of the text, and make the document much
> longer
> to read for screen reader users. However, we have found that quite a lot of
> screen reader users like having descriptions of all images in a document.
>
> A solution to this problem for HTML webpages is to include a hidden
> JavaScript control so screen reader users can turn off image descriptions.
>
> However, we also produce a lot of PDF and Word documents. I'm not sure what
> the 'default' behaviour should be.
>
> Have any of you dealt with an issue like this before?
>
>
>
> If you're a screen reader user, would you prefer to have image descriptions
> or just the text?
>
>
>
> PS: If you're interested in reading more about this issue, I posted a
> thread
> in the Blind subreddit
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/comments/b9luia/if_an_image_doesnt_add_meani
> ng_should_it_have_alt/> a few days ago and have received strong opinions
> on
> both sides.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> Larry Hudson | Content Producer | The Information Access Group
>
> Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | Web:
> <http://www.informationaccessgroup.com/>; www.informationaccessgroup.com
>
>
>
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >
> > > > >
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Fri, Apr 12 2019 8:11AM
Subject: Re: If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt text?
← Previous message | No next message
Just note that the null attribute does not work in Microsoft Office.
Cheers, Karen
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
Isabel Holdsworth
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:42 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt
text?
Hi Larry,
We tend to add empty/null alt attributes ( alt="" ) to our decorative
images.
If a screenreader user can already derive the meaning from the text, and the
image's alt text would only mirror what's already available, then it would
be counter-productive to repeat it.
I'm a screenreader user with a busy life, and I'd rather read a document
more quickly than listen to redundant alternative text. But that's just a
personal opinion :-)
Cheers, Isabel
On 08/04/2019, Karlen Communications < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> In the PDF format, decorative images can be identified as Artifacts
> using the Reading Order tool. This means that adaptive technology
> "doesn't see them" and therefore we don't spend valuable time
> listening to Alt Text for images that don't really add or support meaning
to the content.
>
> In the latest version of Microsoft Office 365/2016+ subscription
> version, you can identify an image in a document as an "Artifact" by
> checking the check box to "Mark as decorative" in the Alt Text Pane.
>
> If you then convert that Word or PowerPoint content to tagged PDF, the
> images will be Artifacts/not seen by the adaptive technology.
>
> BUT...
>
> If you then share that Word or PowerPoint document with someone who is
> not using the latest version of Office 365/2016+ subscription they
> will not have access to the fact that the images are Artifacts. The
> ability to mark something in an Office 365/2016+ subscription
> application is NOT backward compatible. If someone using an earlier
> version of Office runs the Accessibility Checker on the file, they
> will get errors for the images that are marked as Artifacts/decorative
> that they are missing alt text. The person reading that content will
> not be able to add Alt text as the Alt text field is not available to
> them because someone using a more recent version of the application
> identified the images as Artifacts/decorative.
>
> And another BUT....
>
> This is a relatively new tool/feature of Office 365/2016+ subscription
> and the adaptive technology hasn't caught up with it yet. So what we
> hear are "graphic, 6 inches by 4 inches" for images marked as
> Artifacts/decorative which isn't helpful when reading through the
document.
>
> On the other hand, if you add Alt text in Word like "decorative image"
> you will need to sift through those images in a PDF document to make
> them Artifacts...or we will have to listen to "graphic, decorative
> image" for every Artifact in a PDF document that is a decorative image.
>
> So, We are at that awkward stage where we have tools to help those of
> us who are document authors but the tools are not backward compatible
> and the adaptive technology has not caught up.
>
> Am not saying don't use this feature in Office 365/2016+ subscription,
> but am saying that there are currently gaps in how this information is
> rendered to other versions of Office and the end-user.
>
> I do use the ability to mark images as Artifacts/decorative in Office
> as I only publish in accessible PDF format and this makes life easier
> and less complicated when it comes to images that are
Artifacts/decorative.
>
> Cheers, Karen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of
> Larry Hudson
> Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 8:08 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [WebAIM] If an image doesn't add meaning, should it have alt
text?
>
> Hi everyone! I work at a company that makes accessible documents for
> people with different types of disability.
>
> We create Easy Read documents with clear, plain language for people
> with low literacy and people from culturally and linguistically
> diverse backgrounds.
> Each line of text has an image that illustrates the meaning of the text.
>
> According to my interpretation of WCAG, images that do not add extra
> meaning should not have alt text. It seems to me that these image
> descriptions will get in the way of the meaning of the text, and make
> the document much longer to read for screen reader users. However, we
> have found that quite a lot of screen reader users like having
> descriptions of all images in a document.
>
> A solution to this problem for HTML webpages is to include a hidden
> JavaScript control so screen reader users can turn off image descriptions.
>
> However, we also produce a lot of PDF and Word documents. I'm not sure
> what the 'default' behaviour should be.
>
> Have any of you dealt with an issue like this before?
>
>
>
> If you're a screen reader user, would you prefer to have image
> descriptions or just the text?
>
>
>
> PS: If you're interested in reading more about this issue, I posted a
> thread in the Blind subreddit
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Blind/comments/b9luia/if_an_image_doesnt_add
> _meani ng_should_it_have_alt/> a few days ago and have received
> strong opinions on both sides.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> Larry Hudson | Content Producer | The Information Access Group
>
> Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | Web:
> <http://www.informationaccessgroup.com/>;
> www.informationaccessgroup.com
>
>
>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >
http://webaim.org/discussion/archives