RE: Use of ALT texts in IMGs

  
Rich:
I am now totally blind but had 20/200 (borderline legally blind) vision in one eye only up  until 1990.  From my perspective as well, I am only interested in alt text if it is relevant to me understanding whatever the purpose of the picture is.
That is, in the extreme case of, say, an art exhibit on the web attempting to give comparative analysis of artists' techniques and/or an historical perspective, I would want enough alt text to determine what the similarities and differences are.  So this would include comments about colors, lines, shapes etc. in enough detail so I can understand these similarities and differences.  I am not interested in descriptions of decorative graphics.
I think I do agree with Alan just about all the time.  He seems to be saying what to me seems to be common sense: "Why did you put this picture on this page?"
If this particular picture conveys a particular idea, mood, piece of information to a sighted viewer, try to provide  an alt text description of that (the idea , mood, or piece of information) in as concise a way as you can.
On the other hand, if your site or set of pages on your site is really there for the sole purpose of saying to your visitors "Here is a collection of nice looking pictures, I hope you find them enjoyable to look at too." , I don't think I would be offended if alt text was not provided.  I would be happy just to hear "This page consists of a collection of nice looking pictures." so I can move on to another site!
personally, for purely (What do I say here? educational/pedogogical reasons), I think everyone should think a little bit why a particular thing (whether picture, audio file, poem, set of links, etc.) was chosen.
-Steve
Steve McCaffrey
ITS
NYSED


  

 

>>> Rich Caloggero <rich@accessexpressed.net> 11/22/99 02:18PM >>>
[Comments are embeded in the text below]

On Saturday, November 20, 1999 10:53 AM, Bruce Bailey 
[SMTP:bbailey@clark.net] wrote:
>
>
> I recently came across this gem from Alan Flavell.   I don't think it is
> that new, but it was last updated 25 October 1999.
> "Use of ALT texts in IMGs" at URL:
> http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/alt/alt-text.html 
>
> In particular, he says I am wrong when I use code like:
> ALT="Photo of building" and ALT="DORS logo".
>
> His closest counter example is <Q>ALT="Picture of Hotel"</Q> which he
> suggests should be replaced with something like <Q>ALT="The Pines Hotel,
> a fine old stone building in extensive grounds"</Q>.
> I don't think there is a need for me to be more descriptive.  Alan might
> say this is because I have not given enough thought as to why the
> picture is there.  Do I want, for example, people to appreciate that the
> building looks new and modern and inviting?  Um, I just have pictures
> (where I can get them) for visual interest.  I have taken care to make
> sure they are small (< 20K), so this "eye candy" should not be too much
> of a hardship.  I guess I figure people might recognize the building the
> building if they happen to drive by.  Alan seems to argue that, since
> (as the author) I feel the pictures are primarily decorational, I should
> use ALT="".  Is he right?
> In my opinion, unless the site is about "pictures", this description is 
too verbose. I certaily won't recognize the building in a drive by... Looks 
like a great candidate for a null descriptor!

>
> On a similar vein, I try never to use the words "picture" or "image" in
> my alt text, since the term is ambiguous.  I prefer "photo" or "drawing"
> or "logo".  Alan argues that this is wrong and that, for example.
> <Q>alt="ACME Corp logo"</Q> should be replaced by either
> <Q>alt="ACME"</Q> or <Q>alt=""</Q> depending on circumstances.  I
> disagree with this, since the addition of one or two more (short) words
> gives additional information to the text-only browser.  Am I misusing
> ALT?
Again, I don't care whether the image came from a photo, a crayon drawing, 
an oil painting, etc. If there is any relevant info there, just tell me 
with as few words as possible. If the logo is echoed by a title which is 
already present in text, then just make the alt tag null. For example, if 
you have your "ACME Corp logo" image above a title "ACME Corporation", then 
in your representation you would hear "ACME Corp logo ACME Corporation", 
which is redundant. I've seen this type of thing out there more than once.

Disclaimer: I'm totally blind, never having seen anything at all in my 
life, not even light. My perspective may thus be quite different than 
someone who has seen or can see some at present. Please do not take these 
comments as other than simply my opinion. I'd sure like to know what others 
think, however.

					Rich Caloggero

Received on Monday, 22 November 1999 15:21:06 UTC