why ALT text alone doesn't suffice for many blind/VI users

aloha, kynn!

in response to bruce's comments on the minutes from the 19 october 2000 
teleconference, you wrote,

quote
Actually, I'm not convinced of this, with the ability of those users to 
turn -off- graphics.

All of the content is available; none is hidden in the markup.  It is clear 
what any given graphic represents.

Thus there are no absolute barriers to access, because the information can 
be accessed in a simple, easy way which is available for free in every browser.
unquote

philosophically, your argument holds water, but when you actually look at 
the range of users covered by the blanket term "low vision" users and the 
technologies currently available to them, the container is instantaneously 
transformed into a sieve, out of which your philosophical conclusions and 
assumptions drain...  graphical representations of text do pose problems 
for a large range of users, some of whose attitudes, modes of operation, 
and functional limitations i've attempted to thumbnail below:

1) if a low vision user has graphic loading turned off, the display space 
in which the ALT text defined for the image is rendered is usually bound by 
the height and width attributes set for the image, which often means that 
only a very small portion of the ALT text is available to the (low vision) 
user surfing with images turned off, rendering the ALT text useless

2) currently available UAs lack user control over

(2a) the expansion of ALT text (so that it is displayed in its entirety and 
not bound to the physical real estate defined for the image...  there are a 
few notable exceptions--those with which i am most familiar are Lynx and 
Opera, although IE 4 and greater offer an "automatically expand ALT text" 
setting, but from the anecdotal evidence provided to me by low vision users 
(coupled with my own experience using IE 4.01, 5, and 5.5 with non COM DOM 
aware screen readers who simply scrape the page and read only that which 
physically appears on the screen), it doesn't always expand the ALT text 
sufficiently to allow it to be exposed in its entirety, and in some 
instances the setting simply doesn't work, at least in IE 5 & 5.5

(2b) the inability to set stylistic rules for the rendering of ALT text -- 
should the ALT text inherit the stylistic attributes of the parent element 
in which it is nested, or should the user be allowed to set a specific 
style rule for the IMG element that allows the user to control the 
presentation of the ALT text?  this is an important consideration--some 
users just want the information, some users want some sort of demarcation 
that this string of text is an equivalent for a binary component of the 
page, so that they can toggle between the two

3) images are sometimes extremely useful to low vision users, especially

(3a) those who are progressively losing their visual acuity
(3b) those who are determined to use what vision they have
(3c) those who are new to computers or whose exposure to computers has been 
exclusively graphical and who are adjusting to either a dramatic or gradual 
loss of visual acuity

let's not forget, the term "low vision user" is as amorphous a category as 
is "cognitively impaired" -- the functional limitations confronting low 
vision users vary enormously, as it lumps together those who meet or just 
barely cross the threshold of the legal requirements that governmental 
entities use to identify people with a certain level of visual acuity as 
"blind"--those for whom have to confront the "you don't look blind enough" 
attitude on a daily basis--to those with minimally useful visual 
acuity...   thus, terms such as "blind" and "legally blind" cover an 
extremely wide gamut of individuals, each with distinct functional 
limitations and learning patterns/coping mechanisms--from those with gross 
light/dark perception, as well as those with central vision loss (i.e. 
those limited to use of peripheral vision), to those with tunnel vision, as 
well as the stereotypical blind individual (i.e. one who travels with a 
cane or guide dog, has no usable vision, and who either wears dark glasses 
or who has what more than one sighted individual has described to me as the 
"thousand-mile stare" or whose eyes are constantly wandering--physical 
attributes which tend to unnerve those who have never before dealt with a 
blind individual on a one-on-one basis, and which all too often still 
unnerve those who deal with the blind on a daily basis)

here are a few real-life case scenarios which may help drive this point 
home even further:

1) i know several people with even less visual acuity than 20/200 (which is 
the legal threshold for being classified as blind in the U.S.) who, 
although they travel without a cane, guide dog, or any other form of 
perceptual assistance, are dependent upon powerful magnifiers that are 
often placed directly on a printed page (a method of reading vernacularly 
known as nose-reading) and who need magnification software in order to 
interact with their computers...  most of them not only surf with image 
loading turned on, but do so precisely because they want to be able to use 
whatever visual acuity they retain in order to perceive, as best they can, 
the iconic and graphical components of a page

2) i know several people who have only very gross light/dark perception who 
can't walk the streets without a cane or guide dog, but who, under the 
right conditions, can still perceive the contrast between the asphalt and 
the painted lines that constitute the cross-walk, despite the fact that 
their limited ability to detect strong contrasts is of little or very 
constricted utility to them...

two vastly different scenarios, but all of which fall under the generic 
term "blindness" or "vision loss" -- thus, telling anyone with low visual 
acuity simply to turning off image loading is not only glib, but reflects a 
basic misunderstanding of the terms "blind" and "low vision" -- there is no 
cookie-cutter solution, and the draconian dictum "just turn off image 
loading and everything will be fine" is not only unrealistic, it is 
insulting to a large, and ever increasing, segment of the population--don't 
forget, the leading causes of vision loss in the quote developed unquote 
world are diseases and degeneration associated with the aging process...

and, putting polemics aside for a second, there is a pragmatic reason why a 
low vision user may either want to surf with image loading set to on, or to 
toggle between image loading and suppression of image loading -- namely the 
appalling lack of ALT text, and its abuse by authors...  some low vision 
users are able to compensate for bad or missing ALT text by looking at as 
much of the image as is possible (even though, in many cases, such an 
exercise may not only be physically painful and stressful, but extremely 
mentally and physically tiring and exceedingly detrimental to their ability 
[or willingness] to subject themselves to the extra physical effort needed 
to traverse such a site or document), all of which combines to make access 
to graphical representations of text practically impossible...

the only metaphor i can think of that translates well is attempting to 
traverse a site by reviewing the document source of each and every page, in 
order to ascertain where the unALTed AREA points, where the unALTed 
hyperlinks lead, where the javascripted hyperlinks lead (when using a 
browser, such as Lynx, that doesn't support javascripted URIs), etc.

kynn, you know that this post isn't a personal attack on you, and i think 
everyone who's witnessed our oft-contentious exchanges on WAI lists know 
that we form a mutual admiration society of 2...  i simply believe very 
strongly that the WG needs to shy away from blanket statements such as 
"this is sufficient for disability group A" and "this is what members of 
disability group B should do" with the implicit (albeit mostly unconscious) 
unstated terminating clause, "instead of complaining to us" -- real life 
ain't that easy, and the utility of lumping individuals into amorphous 
categories which bear monolithic names, such as "the blind", "the deaf", 
and the "cognitively impaired/disabled" troubles me immensely..

yes, many of the problems i outlined above will hopefully be rectified in 
the not-too-distant future (within the next 6-months, right bill?) by the 
issuance of UAs that comply with the User Agent Guidelines and authoring 
tools that comply with ATAG, but until then--and until conformant products 
are (a) localized, and (b) trickle down to those who will most benefit from 
UAAG and ATAG--these will continue to be persistent problems for a great 
many users in whose name and ostensive interest we are drafting and 
refining the WAI suite of guidelines, although it should never be forgotten 
that _everyone_ will benefit from the WAI suite of guidelines, directly or 
indirectly...

so once again, it comes down to the same old chicken-and-egg 
question...  in my opinion, we not only need to keep the incubator running, 
but get it into the chicken house, so that rather than being perceived as a 
choice (the chicken or the egg), the chicken-and-egg question--which is 
often perceived not as a question, but as an impasse--can be treated 
symbiotically, rather than as a dichotomy.

gregory, lost in the barnyard of his own mind

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSURDITY, n.  A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with
one's own opinion.       -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gregory J. Rosmaita, <unagi69@concentric.net>
Camera Obscura:             http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
VICUG NYC:            http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html
Read 'Em & Speak:     http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 16:05:42 UTC