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

Hi again,
I meant to include an example of our descriptions. 
The following link takes you to what we call the “A11y View” of the Ohm’s Law simulation. Learner’s do not use the A11y View, they just access the published visual simulation and learners who are blind access the same simulation with their preferred screen reader and get access to a n interactive described experience.

The point of the example is to show the intro or scene summary and to show the document structure. In a static form, the Ohm’s Law visualization is less complex than what Chaals has shared.
https://phet-dev.colorado.edu/html/ohms-law/1.5.0-dev.4/phet/ohms-law_a11y_view.html <https://phet-dev.colorado.edu/html/ohms-law/1.5.0-dev.4/phet/ohms-law_a11y_view.html>

Taliesin




> On Aug 14, 2021, at 7:59 AM, Taliesin Smith <talilief@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chaals,
> In my work I describe interactive visual representations. I am assuming that this diagram is not interactive. That said, everything about a blind person’s reading experience is pretty interactive. If you convert the diagram into a logical hierarchical document structure with perhaps headings and lists you might able to capture some more of the layout.
> 
> I totally agree that a summary of the digram at the top of the description is a good approach. We do this for all of our simulations. It creates a a quick big-picture view of the state of the interactive, then learners/users can drill down further and explore the state of each object if they so choose. Of course, since our simulations are interactive, in addition to state descriptions learners/users receive automated responses of what’s happening to interactive objects and the context when a learner/user is actively making changes.
> 
> I think our approach to describing our “State Descriptions” is quite relevant to your context. Of course, we use HTML to house our descriptions because HTML provides the semantic structure for the hierarchy you create. The issue with completed alternative text in SVG’s and images is there is no structure.
> 
> We have written a paper about our description design framework:
> Smith, T.L. and Moore, E.B. 2020. Storytelling to Sensemaking: A Systematic Framework for Designing Auditory Description Display for Interactives. CHI ’20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA, Apr. 2020).
> 
> Also, Kyle Keane wrote a report on describing interactive scientific graphics in 2012. Again, the focus was interactive, but Keane’s guide also splits the approach into non-interactive and interactive pieces, so again I think Keane’s list of  best practices also apply to static representations.
> Keane, K. 2014. Interactive Scientific Graphics Recommended Practices for Verbal Description. Wolfram Research, Inc.
> 
> Volker Sorge and his group have done some amazing work on chemical digram and other chart-like diagrams and representations. In chemical diagrams they make them interactive so learners can navigate the structure of the chemical digram to gain an understanding of the structure.
> Sorge, V. et al. 2015. End-to-end solution for accessible chemical diagrams. Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference (Florence, Italy, May 2015), 1–10.
> 
> I hope these resources are helpful.
> I agree with other comments that an equitable described experience is important and that alternate described representations are helpful to more than the intended audience of the visually impaired. Visuals together with a description may create a deeper understanding of the concept that the visual represents.
> Your approach will depend on what you are intending to communicate with that diagram. 
> 
> Taliesin Smith
> talilief@gmail.com <mailto:talilief@gmail.com>
> 
> ~.~.~
> Also reachable at:
> Taliesin.Smith@colorado.edu <mailto:Taliesin.Smith@colorado.edu>
> Inclusive Design Researcher
> PhET Interactive Simulations
> https://phet.colorado.edu/en/accessibility
> Physics Department
> University of Colorado, Boulder
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 12, 2021, at 10:11 AM, Chris O'Brien <chrobrien@olg.ca <mailto:chrobrien@olg.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>> Agreed. I think this approach works best and provides adjacent alt text for the graph. 
>> 
>> Chris O’Brien
>> Director of Accessibility
>> Legal and Litigation
>> 
>> 
>> OLG Internal
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com <mailto:rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>> 
>> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 5:05 AM
>> To: Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net <mailto:charles.nevile@consensys.net>>
>> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: level of detail in alt, for a "self-describing" SVG
>> 
>> This email originated outside of OLG. Do not open attachments or click links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>> 
>> Aside from the needs of visually disabled people I have to say I can never understand graphics like this, I prefer to have a complete description of everything that the graphic illustrates and read that because I just do not think visually - I think in text.
>> 
>> Hope that helps,
>> Bryan Rasmussen
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 3:48 AM Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net <mailto:charles.nevile@consensys.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> since we don't have a clear mechanism to include a detailed 
>>> description for those who want it, I'm looking for thoughts on a concrete problem:
>>> 
>>> The context is an acyclic directed graph diagram in a specification.
>>> Translating to "common jargon", it looks like a flowchart.
>>> 
>>> I've made an SVG, which includes a <desc> element laying out the 
>>> pieces, and there is text for all the labels. If you read through 
>>> sequentially it is various named containers that each list several 
>>> labels followed by their value.
>>> 
>>> I think it makes sense to write an alt attribute that describes the 
>>> core pieces in general terms, rather than the complete detail, because 
>>> it is an example anyway.
>>> 
>>> The sort of difference I am asking about is between on the one hand
>>> 
>>> "The Signature has a type, of 'RsaSignature', an issuance date of 3 
>>> november, a creator of 'example university public key 11', a signature 
>>> of 'aeunvaeournvq[e8nv', and a nonce of 123abcfeed321".
>>> 
>>> or on the other hand
>>> 
>>> "A signature with a nonce, date, algorithm used and a public key for 
>>> the proof's creator".
>>> 
>>> I have attached one relevant SVG, and its desc element contains text 
>>> in line with the more general alt I am proposing.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Charles "chaals" Nevile
>>> ConsenSys Lead Standards Architect
>