Re: Thoughts on professional portrait (headshot) images?

Hi Grey,

> If using <details>, <summary>, <figcaption>, etc. are determined to be
better ways to provide the information, then that's the route to go, and we
may want to consider that to be a basic requirement for portrait
accessibility.

Respectfully, I think you are mixing some things up here.

The techniques I referenced would work for *any* image (or other
non-textual element) that requires more than a label, including but not
limited to what you keep referring to as "portraits", but in fact are "head
shots" of simply pictures of individual people. The basic semantic
mechanics however remains the same: the Accessible name is the 'label' for
the non-textual element, and the Accessible description is, well, the
description.

Based on that, the Accessible name (aka @alt) for those types of images
should still be kept succinct and to the point - it is an alternative, not
a description. (I am also slightly concerned over your apparent suggestion
of "Portrait" being some kind of 'special' image: we would need a clear
definition of what is meant by 'portrait' here, as an avatar icon
<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/AFdZucob3KU7gU4MIxaCixz-Sm2ioabXEdodgrLiZzxNfg=s80-p>
that is 80 px square is stretching the common english definition of
'portrait' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait>. In the world of
Standards, ambiguity such as this is the type of devilish details that need
to be addressed.)

Second, "requirements" are set by entities outside of the W3C - all the W3C
can do is make recommendations, and ensure that there are technical
solutions available to enable those recommendations. "Requirements" are set
by legislators and/or other policy stake-holders - it is the elected
legislators who pass laws that say "your website must meet the WCAG 2.x
standard", and not the W3C. In that regard, at least in the USA, you will
probably never be able to mandate the types of details you are advocating
for from the legislators, as it would likely run afoul of the US First
Amendment (Freedom of Speech). (Consider as well that I may not *want* to
share some of the types of details you are advocating for - what then?)

For that reason, the editorial types of changes you are seeking can only
truly be achieved through education and social change, it will never be
something that would be mandated across the board: at best it is an
editorial policy that some entities could adopt (and to that end, good
examples and clear editorial direction to aid in that kind of adoption
would assist in moving that ball forward.)

If this is a topic you want to see more work happen on, I'll note that
there is currently an Equity sub-group
<https://www.w3.org/2022/08/15-wcag3-equity-minutes.html> working under the
WCAG 3 effort that might be open to exploring this further. Volunteers are
always welcome!

Good luck!

JF

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 7:57 PM Grey L. Pierce <glp@uoregon.edu> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I agree that a lengthy or exhaustive description wouldn't be appropriate
> for alt text of a portrait. "Photo of John Foliot, a white middle-aged man"
> is more in line with what I was suggesting, treating it as an image that
> provides supplemental information (
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/informative/#example-2-images-used-to-supplement-other-information).
> If using <details>, <summary>, <figcaption>, etc. are determined to be
> better ways to provide the information, then that's the route to go, and we
> may want to consider that to be a basic requirement for portrait
> accessibility.
>
> --
> Grey L. Pierce (they/them)
> Digital Accessibility Architect
> University of Oregon
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2022 3:50 PM
> *To:* Grey L. Pierce <glp@uoregon.edu>
> *Cc:* Hickey, Casey <ca.hickey@northeastern.edu>; John Foliot <
> john@foliot.ca>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Thoughts on professional portrait (headshot) images?
>
> Hi Grey,
>
> > The question isn't just what percentage of people find portrait
> descriptions redundant or unnecessary...
>
>
> The alt text for a head shot *SHOULD NOT *be a lengthy description, *it
> should be succinct and to the point*.
> (i.e. alt="Photo: John Foliot", and *not *alt="Photo of John Foliot who
> has a white handlebar mustache and is wearing a cowboy hat. John is a
> heterosexual white male aged 63")
>
> As its name suggests, it is an *alternative* to the image, not the *description
> *of the image - a nuanced but important distinction. This is because @alt
> maps to the Accessible Name (and NOT the Accessible Description) in the
> Accessibility tree accessed by screen readers. See here for more details:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/#:~:text=Each%20platform%20accessibility%20API%20provides,See%20related%20accessible%20description
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/*:*:text=Each*20platform*20accessibility*20API*20provides,See*20related*20accessible*20description__;I34lJSUlJSUl!!C5qS4YX3!EW8tF-yS2bjpfauVEQZZGIds_QRfHiCRKqXk0iTFPGCSZjpWxAvAU26er0YgstifrhjyAw3h6nnk$>.
>
>
> Overloading text alternatives with all manner of descriptive details is
> the type of verbosity issue that I think Casey was concerned about (and to
> be clear I am not dismissing the importance of inclusion, simply advocating
> for the user-experience of non-sighted users). Providing information
> related to gender-presentation, race, etc. is generally inappropriate for
> text alternatives; it could (and should) be furnished via other methods
> (including potentially <details> & <summary>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/details__;!!C5qS4YX3!EW8tF-yS2bjpfauVEQZZGIds_QRfHiCRKqXk0iTFPGCSZjpWxAvAU26er0YgstifrhjyA18HYnSO$>,
> or perhaps <figcaption>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/figcaption__;!!C5qS4YX3!EW8tF-yS2bjpfauVEQZZGIds_QRfHiCRKqXk0iTFPGCSZjpWxAvAU26er0YgstifrhjyA4KIuCW2$> -
> and I personally remain extremely frustrated that Apple went off on their
> own and decided that @longdesc - despite being a valid attribute
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/__;!!C5qS4YX3!EW8tF-yS2bjpfauVEQZZGIds_QRfHiCRKqXk0iTFPGCSZjpWxAvAU26er0YgstifrhjyA-0c_dZe$>
> - is no longer supported on their platform, effectively killing off a
> useful attribute. It remains, in my opinion, yet another example of Apple's
> hubris).
>
> An important consideration here is that generally, the Accessible name is
> ALWAYS read aloud to the end user, whereas the Accessible Description is
> "on-demand" content - the user can retrieve it if they want, or ignore it
> as part of the reading experience. In this regard, it is not unlike bar or
> pie charts: the @alt text (Accessible name) might be "Monthly earnings for
> 2022", but then the Accessible Descriptions (furnished via multiple choices
> of technique) would be the actual earnings details for January, February,
> March, etc. Attempting to insert all of that data into an @alt text string
> would be a poor UX, and in fact depending on how much data is there, some
> screen readers might truncate the @al text string after 250 characters (+/-)
>
> I struggle then to support recommendations that, in support of one
> marginalized group, has a negative impact on another marginalized group. If
> the person in question wishes (for example) to be referenced as "they/them"
> then that should be included in text for all to see, and not buried in some
> alt text that most users will never see.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> JF
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:52 PM Grey L. Pierce <glp@uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> It's worth noting the biases inherent in decisions or assumptions
> regarding not including actual descriptions of portraits. Race, ethnicity,
> and gender presentation, among other things, are generally apparent in a
> photograph, but are unlikely to be written anywhere, and none of those
> should be assumed based on someone's name, job title, etc. Knowing that
> information can be very helpful, particularly for people from marginalized
> racial, ethnic, or religious groups or gender identities. It's the same
> bias that leads to people writing alt text or descriptions that only
> mention a person's race if they aren't white (i.e., treating white as the
> default race of a human, so a white woman is described as a "woman," while
> a Black woman is described as a "Black woman," because "woman" on its own
> is assumed to imply "white woman").
>
> The question isn't just what percentage of people find portrait
> descriptions redundant or unnecessary , but whether it's primarily people
> of particular backgrounds (e.g., white, cisgender, etc.) who are more
> numerous, more likely to give their opinion, or more likely to be listened
> to who are saying they find them redundant. We need to ensure that we're
> including a diverse set of voices and perspectives, and giving them due
> consideration, when making decisions that may have disproportionate impacts
> on marginalized groups and people.
>
> --
> Grey L. Pierce (they/them)
> Digital Accessibility Architect
> University of Oregon
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Hickey, Casey <ca.hickey@northeastern.edu>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2022 1:16 PM
> *To:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Cc:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Thoughts on professional portrait (headshot) images?
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this thoughtful response. I’d love to see an *augmentative*
> image category added to WAI’s guidance for images in the page(s) I
> previously shared. In working with page templates and pattern libraries,
> I’ve been challenged by many scenarios where images often live in the space
> between decorative and informational. And when folks don’t feel confident
> about that choice, I fear the answer might be to err on the side of adding
> alt text even when it’s not helpful, as that could be considered the
> “safer” option. (Safer from an auditing/compliance standpoint, not from the
> standpoint of making the right decision).
>
>
>
> Thanks again for responding, the insight is helpful and appreciated.
>
>
>
> Casey
>
>
>
> *From: *John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Date: *Friday, August 19, 2022 at 3:23 PM
> *To: *Hickey, Casey <ca.hickey@northeastern.edu>
> *Cc: *w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Thoughts on professional portrait (headshot) images?
>
> Hi Casey,
>
>
>
> > w3.org’s People directory
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.w3.org*2FPeople&data=05*7C01*7Cca.hickey*40northeastern.edu*7C8c93a4472a714600a3f708da8218553f*7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7*7C0*7C0*7C637965338264775190*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=cE8tXOWpfoM6jxJoPtyNBnhVAlc*2BkewO*2FZx3kiW57Xo*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!C5qS4YX3!GGdR83HrbI3lcrP1oJk4BsY7fQ3O1TuHn0UYtKLonqgLcyPVFTy7bhqp4cDOQQ6QnArKtCR2B9jFZixEToKHqIRW$> uses
> “Photo of [first name] [last name]” as its alt text
>
>
>
> Yep. This topic has gone around before, and there really is no definitive
> answer, however I will suggest that in context, it is helpful to provide
> alt text in this scenario, as the photo of the person is (again, in
> context) an important part of the overall "Bio sheet" content.
>
>
>
> I've offered the following justification in the past: although a
> non-sighted user will not see the image, a head-shot image is actually a
> *VERY* important graphic file. Non-sighted users MAY want to show the photo
> to a sighted colleague ("I want to meet this person" or "I need a photo of
> Joe for this report I am writing for my manager" of similar types of uses),
> and so in context it is NOT a decorative image (if we had to label it, it
> is an "augmentative" image - not one of the 4 common categories of images).
> So the "SEO" aspect here is also an important consideration at a higher
> level.
>
>
>
> While I am not a daily screen reader myself, I do not think that most
> non-sighted users will be overly chuffed over a small bit of alternative
> text in this case - remember as well that it is trivial to skip past images
> and image alt-texts when using a screenreader, so on balance, while your
> concern over overt verbosity is appreciated, I'll venture to suggest it
> isn't an issue here.
>
> My $0.02 - your mileage may vary.
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:21 AM Hickey, Casey <ca.hickey@northeastern.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hello WAI-IG,
>
>
>
> I’ve been giving some thought to whether headshot images should include
> alt text, especially when they’re adjacent to the pictured individual’s
> name.
>
>
>
> I’ve seen some opinions that say the image is meaningful because it’s
> conveying an impression. I also recognize that adding alt text to a series
> of profiles like this could weigh down the screen reader experience with
> seemingly redundant information.
>
>
>
> I’m leaning toward the latter, but I’d like to hear opinions/perspective
> from the group, or any information that there’s a standard/codified best
> practice here.
>
>
>
> WAI’s examples for Informative Images
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.w3.org*2FWAI*2Ftutorials*2Fimages*2Finformative*2F&data=05*7C01*7Cca.hickey*40northeastern.edu*7C8c93a4472a714600a3f708da8218553f*7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7*7C0*7C0*7C637965338264775190*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=c4SqzPZLBA1IV4TVjKRdV5o7E0YhZb8ZIuZndxUr06k*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!C5qS4YX3!GGdR83HrbI3lcrP1oJk4BsY7fQ3O1TuHn0UYtKLonqgLcyPVFTy7bhqp4cDOQQ6QnArKtCR2B9jFZixETgeNCT2b$>
> and Decorative Images
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.w3.org*2FWAI*2Ftutorials*2Fimages*2Fdecorative*2F&data=05*7C01*7Cca.hickey*40northeastern.edu*7C8c93a4472a714600a3f708da8218553f*7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7*7C0*7C0*7C637965338264931857*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=ETki0sW1rwxBeD7*2B6AvswKnu*2FtidjgGPSxy*2BFiZCqgk*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!C5qS4YX3!GGdR83HrbI3lcrP1oJk4BsY7fQ3O1TuHn0UYtKLonqgLcyPVFTy7bhqp4cDOQQ6QnArKtCR2B9jFZixEThgwjwlQ$>
> both come close, but neither directly address this use case.
>
>
>
> w3.org’s People directory
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.w3.org*2FPeople&data=05*7C01*7Cca.hickey*40northeastern.edu*7C8c93a4472a714600a3f708da8218553f*7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7*7C0*7C0*7C637965338264931857*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=pT4xtuubctvASYyDK*2BvC4pbiu8hME6KBuZa49s68b5U*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!C5qS4YX3!GGdR83HrbI3lcrP1oJk4BsY7fQ3O1TuHn0UYtKLonqgLcyPVFTy7bhqp4cDOQQ6QnArKtCR2B9jFZixETqOMa-eC$>
> uses “Photo of [first name] [last name]” as its alt text, which leads me to
> second-guess my instinct here.
>
>
>
> Thank you for any thoughts.
>
>
>
> Casey Hickey
>
> Digital Accessibility Manager
> Information Technology Services
> Northeastern University
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *John Foliot* |
> Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
> W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>
>
>
> --
> *John Foliot* |
> Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
> W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
>
> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"