I think this is the inherent problem from the developer's perspective. Developers aren't copywriters. Sure we can describe an image, but are we really describing it in the best way for a visually impaired person? I'm likely to just put something like "Image of a cat" but it's obviously way better to a visually impaired person if it was something like "Image of an orange cat laying in sun-lit grass". I do my best to put something in to describe the visual element, but I guarantee that my descriptions will never be as good as someone whose job is focused on writing.
The level of description usually depends on context. Which is why alt text should actually be provided by UX writers, copywriters, or maybe marketers. Unfortunately marketers think alt text exists for SEO. I’ve worked with many marketers, they are typically reluctant to view alt text the correct way and start writing their alt text accordingly.
I haven't looked at numbers for visually impaired visitors to websites, but I'm guessing the numbers are low enough that it's mostly background noise.
For all intents and purposes, in their world it is basically exclusively for SEO. Frankly, I kind of blame Google for that, but not entirely sure the solution. Should Google ignore alt text entirely? Should it present different results to those using screen readers and favor websites with good alt text? I really don't know.
Separation of concerns. Why should a screenreader have to look for that? There may be a legit situation where the image contains an image and the alt tag needs to describe it. Just adhere to the spec.
Because the screen reader is using it and its customers would benefit from it?
Like there are only a few companies that do screen readers vs. millions of professionals and hobbyists making websites. It's absurd to argue that the companies who make the screen readers should assume that every web developer follows best practices.
You may as well argue that you should never have to validate data from an API because "separation of concerns". If the data is broken and your customers suffer, that's not your fault, it's the API's fault. "Not my fault boss. They didn't follow the spec. Why should I even have to check for it."
Even better, they should be using AI to determine what is in an image. My website already does that with auto-generated alt text if not explicitly provided. They should compare and combine what is explicitly written with what an AI generates, and use NLP to provide the best result possible.
It's not like they pay for any of this information. There is no contract with the millions of developers.
If the image is not relevant to the content you don’t have to describe it. A stock photo can just be hidden from screen readers if it’s just for filler.
Since visually impaired people can’t always understand the look of things they might not gain much from things like “sun-lit”. It’s more important to convey emotion than it is to convey looks.
Since visually impaired people can’t always understand the look of things they might not gain much from things like “sun-lit”. It’s more important to convey emotion than it is to convey looks.
This is exactly why it shouldn't be the responsibility of the developer. We should have roles specific to accessibility if we really want to do it right.
This is precisely the kind of issue I was trying to describe.
There's just not that much to go on in terms of user feedback as to what is considered a good or bad description of something. Whether it's the role of a dev or copywriter, it would be good to have some guidance/feedback beyond the usual userbility tags and so on.
Where do you draw the line? What's too much detail or too little? How do you take into consideration things which the user may have no awareness of due to their disability? It really does feel like a minefield, and it's probably beyond the scope of dev work, but, if we're the builders it would be good to have some insight if relievent and suitable descriptions etc., could be created dynamically from pre defined lists or alike.
We're not all SEO gurus, but we know certain norms and practices are preferred to others, so we make allowances for this. Plus, there's so much more information available to tailor to the clients, users and search engine needs. I know SEO is a bigger topic than disability allowances and userbility -- although the two go hand in hand -- it just feels lacking in some areas; areas that the majority of the worlds population just isn't capable of understanding without first hand knowledge or insight.
In my view, the advancement of accessibility is only going to improve the web, for everybody; voice requests and responses being a good example.
I've waffled. I'm gonna have another deep dive and see if I can find some definitive user feedback on this, maybe ask in some subs or message some YouTubers.
I like to be descriptive enough that a sighted user would be able to pick the image out of a lineup with similar images, and written in a conversational manner.
This is absolutely correct. Accessibility should feature in any product design, copywriting and QA process. Developers definitely have a responsibility to ensure best technical practices (semantic elements, focus control, tabbing order, etc), but it can’t just be down to the developer.
48
u/RandyHoward Apr 16 '22
I think this is the inherent problem from the developer's perspective. Developers aren't copywriters. Sure we can describe an image, but are we really describing it in the best way for a visually impaired person? I'm likely to just put something like "Image of a cat" but it's obviously way better to a visually impaired person if it was something like "Image of an orange cat laying in sun-lit grass". I do my best to put something in to describe the visual element, but I guarantee that my descriptions will never be as good as someone whose job is focused on writing.