Re: level of detail in alt, for a "self-describing" SVG

Hello Guy,

yes, you've got the original right.

My question is whether it makes sense to describe every last label, given  
that the context where this image is used is an example of what pieces  
there are in a verifiable credential or verifiable presentation.

In other words, I only want to replace the alt text if we can provide a  
better one. Like you and others I thought it was more detailed than it  
needs to be, which means it *could* be improved. For more context, I got  
here by working on the SVG source code itself, which was horrid for  
accessibility with a lot of scope for improvement.

The examples I gave were for comparison to each other - they're each just  
an extract of what would be an alt, but they take two different approaches.

Making the SVG something that can be explored accessibly by people skilled  
in the art provides a way for the highly technical to interpret the data  
whether blind or not. I think adding some aria will help improve on what I  
have right now for that purpose - which Léonie was kind enough to confirm.

I will take your comment with the others and propose streamlining the alt  
text in the original context, along with some aria  to improve the  
accessibility of the SVG for those who are used to exploring this kind of  
information and expect it to be put together properly so they can.

Cheers

Chaals

(Actually the term "graph" in this context is pretty much the standard  
technical term for knowledge representation diagrams like this one, but  
it's a very specialised use. Just as in accessibility we know what "alt  
text" means even though for most people it's still not a term they would  
use at all.)

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:28:42 +1000, Guy Hickling <guy.hickling@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Actually the original of this diagram (from W3C at  
> https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/) already has a perfectly reasonable  
> >alt text, one that starts off by conveying the fact that there is 'a  
> Credential component on top connected via a proof to a >Proof component  
> on the bottom'. Why don't you like their alt text? I agree it's somewhat  
> long winded, mainly due to including >all the data values which, as  
> others have already said, is perhaps a little unnecessary in an example.  
> And they use the word >"graph" in a sense that nobody else on Planet  
> Earth uses it.



-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Received on Friday, 13 August 2021 02:40:44 UTC