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

At 04:06 PM 10/20/00 -0400, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>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

Greg, there is a point when loading the graphics, when the alt text takes
it's own space before it is replaced by the graphic. Seems to me that the
presentation of a page with graphics turned off would follow the model used
during uploading rather than tie up real estate on the page with space for
the graphics. In short, the browsers should return the full document,
including the whole alt tag, and if they did, this discussion wouldn't be
needed. I am completely flummoxed by the notion that browsers allow
magnification of text but not graphics. People who create pages where the
graphics are the principal content often have two copies of the image on
the site, the small "thumbnail" that appears on the page, and the full size
graphic that appears if you click on the thumbnail. Logos aren't content,
and are rarely treated that way. Perhaps asking web designers to include
two sizes of a logo, but that would probably conflict with using the logo
as a link.

written as a guideline would be:

*Until User Agents" allow enlargement of any element on a page, include two
sizes of graphic, set up so that clicking on the small version that loads
with the page, will result in a large version of the graphic. 

Maybe it just belongs on a "wish list" ...

					Anne


>
>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
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org

Received on Saturday, 21 October 2000 09:13:23 UTC