RE: Thoughts on professional portrait (headshot) images?

The one comment I'd add to the mix is the ability to have on-page alternatives under the WCAG conformance requirements allows for an image to be marked decorative if there is an alternative on the page.  The question is then does the person's name alone act as an alternative.  It appears that there is strong response from many that it alone does not communicate the presence of headshots.   So, this could be met if the page indicated that headshots were on the page rather than being on each image.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson <lcarlson@d.umn.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Guy Hickling <guy.hickling@gmail.com>
Cc: WAI Interest Group discussion list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on professional portrait (headshot) images?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


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 Wednesday, 24 August 2022 14:03:56 UTC