Re: Thoughts on professional portrait (headshot) images?

Well said Guy!

Something for folks to be aware of are the only exceptions presented
in WCAG 1.1.1. are

* Controls, Input
* Time-Based Media
* Test
* Sensory
* Decoration, Formatting, Invisible

And "Decoration, Formatting, Invisible" reads "If non-text content is
pure decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not
presented to users, then it is implemented in a way that it can be
ignored by assistive technology."
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#non-text-content

"Pure decoration" is defined as "serving only an aesthetic purpose,
providing no information, and having no functionality".
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration

Kind Regards,
Laura

On 8/23/22, Guy Hickling <guy.hickling@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My view is that the author’s view should prevail. If the author says the
> image is decorative, then that’s what it is.
>
> But in many cases (maybe most cases), we cannot know what an author's
> intention was when they display some content. All outsiders (i.e. anyone
> not the author) have to work on is the content itself, and the rest of the
> surrounding web page as the context. They cannot know the author didn't
> intend them to take in any information they contain. Accessibility testers,
> likewise, can't second-guess the mind of the author, as to whether they
> left the alt text blank because, like too many developers, they don't
> understand (or care?) about screen reader users, or because they genuinely
> considered it decorative.
>
> In cases of doubt I believe the user, not the author, is the one who should
> decide if an image provides useful information for them. Some images that
> many of us (including the original developer) might dismiss as decorative,
> other sighted users may nevertheless find they provide interesting context.
> Sighted users can make that decision for themselves.
>
> Blind people should have the same right to decide too - but when we put an
> empty alt attribute on something, we take away that right to decide from
> them because they will no longer be told an image even exists! So we need
> to be quite sure that something really does not provide any information,
> i.e. is truly just decorative, before we decide to take away that right. I
> believe that when SC1.1.1 says "the equivalent purpose", it means the
> purpose of the image as it actually appears on the page, not any nebulous
> guess at what the author might have intended. So the Understanding document
> describes the intention of this SC as "The intent of this Success Criterion
> is to make information conveyed by non-text content accessible through the
> use of a text alternative." - no reference to the author, only to the
> actual content as it appears on the page.
>
> In the case of headshots, a lot of people can obtain a lot of useful
> information from these - how old they are, what gender, what ethic
> background, and so on. Even if we don't find it easy to include all that in
> the alt text, blind people can ask a friend what the person in the photo
> looks like. But if we don't tell them an image is there, they can't.
>
> I recently audited a university website. Many hero images on various pages
> show some really beautifully designed buildings, but because they are hero
> images they were all given empty alt texts. There was, in fact, not a
> single screen reader announcement, anywhere, of what the buildings looked
> like, although sighted people got to see them all! So I recommended that,
> in a few of the images showing the best views, they should add good alt
> text descriptions, even though not particularly relevant to the adjacent
> text, just so blind people could be given some idea of what these buildings
> looked like. The buildings may not have been relevant to adjacent text, but
> they are certainly relevant to anyone interested in the website and the
> university as a whole.

-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2022 20:24:03 UTC