![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was dinged by Wapcaplet for stating on How to edit a page that the most appropriate ALT text for most images is "". It seems that Wapcaplet, and many Wikipedia contributors, are unfortunately mistaken on this issue; they apparently think that any ALT text is better than none, but this is usually not the case.
Take, for example, the article on Karl Marx. As I write this, the ALT text for Marx's picture is "Kmarx.jpg". That is horribly wrong, as you'll discover if you run the article through a speech browser: "Karl Marx. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Kmarx dot jay pee jee Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 - March 14, 1883) was an influential political philosopher ..." Huh? Who on earth is Kmarx dot jay pee jee Karl Marx?
ALT text is an accessibility aid, which should express the meaning of an image for someone who can't see it -- it should not make them feel guilty or disadvantaged about not seeing it. Appropriate ALT text for the Karl Marx picture might be "Marx was an imposing figure, with a full moustache and a large beard." However, is that kind of information really important for someone listening to an encyclopedia article? If it is, then use it as the ALT text. If it isn't important -- and it isn't important in most cases, because the image is merely illustrative rather than meaningful -- then the most appropriate ALT text is "".
-- Mpt 00:20 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You may note, from the third link you give:
I would strongly disagree that an empty ALT text tag is appropriate in any case, save those where the image is absolutely meaningless (such as a design element, spacer, or the like - elements which are quickly becoming obsolete as browsers begin to support a wider range of CSS and other web standards). And I agree with you, "Kmarx dot jay pee gee" is highly inappropriate as well. The reason the one on the Karl Marx article is "Kmarx.jpg" is because whoever placed the image there did not bother to give it meaningful ALT text. Appropriate ALT text in this case might be "Photograph of Karl Marx." It's just enough information to let speech readers know what an appropriate thing to say would be. If the ALT text were empty, the text-only reader or the person with the screen reader would wonder "So, does that image contain anything of interest?"
To answer your point - no, I do not think that just any old ALT text is better than none. But I do think that if someone is going to bother putting something in the ALT text, it should be something other than an empty space.
-- Wapcaplet 00:45 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The WCAGs (as paraphrased by the checkpoints for them, which you linked to) say "Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content", not "Provide descriptions of auditory and visual content". "Photograph of Karl Marx" is a description, not an equivalent; it would be an excellent TITLE, but as ALT text it would be just as annoying as "kmarx.jpg" is. Listen to the speech browser again: "Karl Marx. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Photograph of Karl Marx Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 - March 14, 1883) was an influential political philosopher ..." Huh? Who on earth is Photograph of Karl Marx Karl Marx?
If I'm blind, why do I care that there's a photo there at all? If the photo's providing meaning, then tell me the meaning. And if it's not providing meaning, then don't fill my ears with garbage; make the image completely silent, using ALT="", as described in Ian Hickson's FAQ ...
-- Mpt 02:13 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Mpt - You have made some excellent points. I must admit I hadn't thoroughly considered the speech presentation matter, nor the fact that there are alternative, and more appropriate, ways of specifying the description of an image. As a proponent of web accessibility yourself, you are probably aware of the difficulty often encountered in even getting people to realize that it's an important issue! I've spent so long just trying to convince people not to leave off the ALT tag entirely (resulting in lots of "IMAGE" placeholders everywhere), and not enough about what is appropriate text.
I think we can at least agree that the short explanation given on Wikipedia:How to edit a page for appropriate usage of ALT text is insufficient. No guidelines are given for what is appropriate ALT text; perhaps an additional page should be created discussing the matter. Meanwhile, perhaps we should petition some of the Wikipedia developers to change the "default" ALT text (for cases such as the Karl Marx one) from the string containing the filename to an empty string as you suggest - since it is probably safe to assume that many people insert images without considering an ALT text equivalent.
It may also be good to change Wikipedia:Image use policy (particularly the section on appropriate markup) to reflect some appropriate ALT text. There is a comment on that page regarding ALT text - if it can be expounded within that page, then the matter of appropriate text should probably be discussed there; if you think (as I am beginning to) that it warrants its own article, then perhaps Wikipedia:Alternate text for images should be created ...
-- Wapcaplet 15:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Some questions:
div
and span
are the tofu of HTML, and you should avoid them whenever there is real markup you can use instead. Ideally, Wikipedia would have a class="illustration"
you could apply to images which would put them to the side, flow text around them with an appropriate margin, etc. Then: If an image’s alternate text is empty, it doesn’t matter where you code it. If non-empty alternate text makes most sense as a paragraph by itself, the image should be coded on a paragraph by itself. And if the alternate text belongs best inside a particular paragraph, that’s where the image should be coded (as in my moon-galileo-color-thumb.jpg
example). --
Mptdiv
. In the case of images inside a paragraph, the img
element should be styled directly, but … (see below) --
Mpt...
title
attribute, or the image description page, or both. --
Mpt...
title
attribute instead (maybe [[Image:source-of-image|alternate text|caption]]
). Putting captions in-line with the rest of the text makes the page nonsensical for those listening to it, which IMHO is similarly unacceptable. --
MptI think that your ideas are great, but please keep in mind that Martin doesn't work on the code (nor I). Programming here is only done by volunteers, but if you could join in to make Wikipedia more accessible, then that would be fantastic! Otherwise, things are liable to be "under advisement" ... '_`. -- Toby Bartels 09:05 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
One big improvement to the picture on the left is to add a period after the ALT text. Then nobody gets confused inside the sentence. That done, the left-hand ALT text is now better than no ALT text at all. There's a good reason why the W3C still recommends always including a text element with an image, which is (or at least one is) that readers can be frustrated if they know that an image is there but not what it is. There is no doubt that the right-hand side is better still, but until the brilliant prose is written, I'd much rather see "Image:Photograph of the Moon." than just "Image". Or IOW, blank ALT text doesn't always render an image invisible, but it still renders an image incomprehensible. Thus it's a Bad Thing. -- Toby Bartels 05:11 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
alt
attribute must be specified" [emphasis added], but the attribute is allowed to be empty (they even give an empty example). And
they say "Provide a text equivalent", but the best text equivalent will often be nothing at all, as I've
explained.alt
attribute isn't present at all, not if it's present but empty. Despite that, I'm at a loss to understand why you think "Photograph of the Moon. The Moon has no atmosphere." would be acceptable for an encyclopedia article. It doesn't even make sense, let alone qualify as
brilliant prose. :-)alt
attribute. (Occasionally it may be useful for that, but only as an accident.) alt
is a replacement for an image; descriptions, on the other hand, belong in title
. --
Mpt 14:27 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)""
, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. I am really curious why you seem so determined that all images must have non-empty alternate text. It Just Ain't So. --
Mpt...
So why give it as an example? Don't bother editors with criticism of the current state of Wikipedia code - just tell them the best way to proceed, given the current state. Save criticism for meta:image pages. Martin
A large number of tourist attractions help attract some 20 million visitors to Paris each year. The city is the hub of France's motorway network, and is surrounded by a large orbital road, the Peripherique.
In terms of the links you provide above. Ian Hickson's mini-FAQ is talking almost entirely about what user agents should do, not about what authors should do. So, ignore that.
Flavell recommends including ALT text for images that are merely "Supplemental or Interesting" - they do not have to be "important and unique". Flavell also makes this point: "If you want to also offer them a link to the picture, then do so, in one of the ways mentioned above. (Even a blind reader might want to download the picture, to show it to a friend later.)" - in both of these points he is contradicting your position. He also suggests "If your audience is accustomed to reading mathematical equations in LATEX notation, you could use that as alt text for the image of the equation" - I think we already do this.
I've yet to see you provide any reference to a source that suggests having ", such as Prince Charles, " or the like as alt text. I'd like to see you provide such a source, if this is indeed recommended practice. Martin 14:10 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
<html><body><p>Fishing -- like golf -- is a relaxing pastime often taken up by celebrities<img style="float:right; clear: right; margin-width: 0 1em 1em 0;" src="prince-charles-fishing.jpg" alt=", such as the Prince of Wales" title="The Prince of Wales, fishing on the Scottish coast in 1993">. Unlike golf, however, it is rarely obvious to the casual observer whether you are doing it in an ineffectual way; to some, this adds to its appeal.</p></body></html>
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was dinged by Wapcaplet for stating on How to edit a page that the most appropriate ALT text for most images is "". It seems that Wapcaplet, and many Wikipedia contributors, are unfortunately mistaken on this issue; they apparently think that any ALT text is better than none, but this is usually not the case.
Take, for example, the article on Karl Marx. As I write this, the ALT text for Marx's picture is "Kmarx.jpg". That is horribly wrong, as you'll discover if you run the article through a speech browser: "Karl Marx. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Kmarx dot jay pee jee Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 - March 14, 1883) was an influential political philosopher ..." Huh? Who on earth is Kmarx dot jay pee jee Karl Marx?
ALT text is an accessibility aid, which should express the meaning of an image for someone who can't see it -- it should not make them feel guilty or disadvantaged about not seeing it. Appropriate ALT text for the Karl Marx picture might be "Marx was an imposing figure, with a full moustache and a large beard." However, is that kind of information really important for someone listening to an encyclopedia article? If it is, then use it as the ALT text. If it isn't important -- and it isn't important in most cases, because the image is merely illustrative rather than meaningful -- then the most appropriate ALT text is "".
-- Mpt 00:20 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You may note, from the third link you give:
I would strongly disagree that an empty ALT text tag is appropriate in any case, save those where the image is absolutely meaningless (such as a design element, spacer, or the like - elements which are quickly becoming obsolete as browsers begin to support a wider range of CSS and other web standards). And I agree with you, "Kmarx dot jay pee gee" is highly inappropriate as well. The reason the one on the Karl Marx article is "Kmarx.jpg" is because whoever placed the image there did not bother to give it meaningful ALT text. Appropriate ALT text in this case might be "Photograph of Karl Marx." It's just enough information to let speech readers know what an appropriate thing to say would be. If the ALT text were empty, the text-only reader or the person with the screen reader would wonder "So, does that image contain anything of interest?"
To answer your point - no, I do not think that just any old ALT text is better than none. But I do think that if someone is going to bother putting something in the ALT text, it should be something other than an empty space.
-- Wapcaplet 00:45 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The WCAGs (as paraphrased by the checkpoints for them, which you linked to) say "Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content", not "Provide descriptions of auditory and visual content". "Photograph of Karl Marx" is a description, not an equivalent; it would be an excellent TITLE, but as ALT text it would be just as annoying as "kmarx.jpg" is. Listen to the speech browser again: "Karl Marx. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Photograph of Karl Marx Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 - March 14, 1883) was an influential political philosopher ..." Huh? Who on earth is Photograph of Karl Marx Karl Marx?
If I'm blind, why do I care that there's a photo there at all? If the photo's providing meaning, then tell me the meaning. And if it's not providing meaning, then don't fill my ears with garbage; make the image completely silent, using ALT="", as described in Ian Hickson's FAQ ...
-- Mpt 02:13 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Mpt - You have made some excellent points. I must admit I hadn't thoroughly considered the speech presentation matter, nor the fact that there are alternative, and more appropriate, ways of specifying the description of an image. As a proponent of web accessibility yourself, you are probably aware of the difficulty often encountered in even getting people to realize that it's an important issue! I've spent so long just trying to convince people not to leave off the ALT tag entirely (resulting in lots of "IMAGE" placeholders everywhere), and not enough about what is appropriate text.
I think we can at least agree that the short explanation given on Wikipedia:How to edit a page for appropriate usage of ALT text is insufficient. No guidelines are given for what is appropriate ALT text; perhaps an additional page should be created discussing the matter. Meanwhile, perhaps we should petition some of the Wikipedia developers to change the "default" ALT text (for cases such as the Karl Marx one) from the string containing the filename to an empty string as you suggest - since it is probably safe to assume that many people insert images without considering an ALT text equivalent.
It may also be good to change Wikipedia:Image use policy (particularly the section on appropriate markup) to reflect some appropriate ALT text. There is a comment on that page regarding ALT text - if it can be expounded within that page, then the matter of appropriate text should probably be discussed there; if you think (as I am beginning to) that it warrants its own article, then perhaps Wikipedia:Alternate text for images should be created ...
-- Wapcaplet 15:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Some questions:
div
and span
are the tofu of HTML, and you should avoid them whenever there is real markup you can use instead. Ideally, Wikipedia would have a class="illustration"
you could apply to images which would put them to the side, flow text around them with an appropriate margin, etc. Then: If an image’s alternate text is empty, it doesn’t matter where you code it. If non-empty alternate text makes most sense as a paragraph by itself, the image should be coded on a paragraph by itself. And if the alternate text belongs best inside a particular paragraph, that’s where the image should be coded (as in my moon-galileo-color-thumb.jpg
example). --
Mptdiv
. In the case of images inside a paragraph, the img
element should be styled directly, but … (see below) --
Mpt...
title
attribute, or the image description page, or both. --
Mpt...
title
attribute instead (maybe [[Image:source-of-image|alternate text|caption]]
). Putting captions in-line with the rest of the text makes the page nonsensical for those listening to it, which IMHO is similarly unacceptable. --
MptI think that your ideas are great, but please keep in mind that Martin doesn't work on the code (nor I). Programming here is only done by volunteers, but if you could join in to make Wikipedia more accessible, then that would be fantastic! Otherwise, things are liable to be "under advisement" ... '_`. -- Toby Bartels 09:05 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
One big improvement to the picture on the left is to add a period after the ALT text. Then nobody gets confused inside the sentence. That done, the left-hand ALT text is now better than no ALT text at all. There's a good reason why the W3C still recommends always including a text element with an image, which is (or at least one is) that readers can be frustrated if they know that an image is there but not what it is. There is no doubt that the right-hand side is better still, but until the brilliant prose is written, I'd much rather see "Image:Photograph of the Moon." than just "Image". Or IOW, blank ALT text doesn't always render an image invisible, but it still renders an image incomprehensible. Thus it's a Bad Thing. -- Toby Bartels 05:11 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
alt
attribute must be specified" [emphasis added], but the attribute is allowed to be empty (they even give an empty example). And
they say "Provide a text equivalent", but the best text equivalent will often be nothing at all, as I've
explained.alt
attribute isn't present at all, not if it's present but empty. Despite that, I'm at a loss to understand why you think "Photograph of the Moon. The Moon has no atmosphere." would be acceptable for an encyclopedia article. It doesn't even make sense, let alone qualify as
brilliant prose. :-)alt
attribute. (Occasionally it may be useful for that, but only as an accident.) alt
is a replacement for an image; descriptions, on the other hand, belong in title
. --
Mpt 14:27 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)""
, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. I am really curious why you seem so determined that all images must have non-empty alternate text. It Just Ain't So. --
Mpt...
So why give it as an example? Don't bother editors with criticism of the current state of Wikipedia code - just tell them the best way to proceed, given the current state. Save criticism for meta:image pages. Martin
A large number of tourist attractions help attract some 20 million visitors to Paris each year. The city is the hub of France's motorway network, and is surrounded by a large orbital road, the Peripherique.
In terms of the links you provide above. Ian Hickson's mini-FAQ is talking almost entirely about what user agents should do, not about what authors should do. So, ignore that.
Flavell recommends including ALT text for images that are merely "Supplemental or Interesting" - they do not have to be "important and unique". Flavell also makes this point: "If you want to also offer them a link to the picture, then do so, in one of the ways mentioned above. (Even a blind reader might want to download the picture, to show it to a friend later.)" - in both of these points he is contradicting your position. He also suggests "If your audience is accustomed to reading mathematical equations in LATEX notation, you could use that as alt text for the image of the equation" - I think we already do this.
I've yet to see you provide any reference to a source that suggests having ", such as Prince Charles, " or the like as alt text. I'd like to see you provide such a source, if this is indeed recommended practice. Martin 14:10 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
<html><body><p>Fishing -- like golf -- is a relaxing pastime often taken up by celebrities<img style="float:right; clear: right; margin-width: 0 1em 1em 0;" src="prince-charles-fishing.jpg" alt=", such as the Prince of Wales" title="The Prince of Wales, fishing on the Scottish coast in 1993">. Unlike golf, however, it is rarely obvious to the casual observer whether you are doing it in an ineffectual way; to some, this adds to its appeal.</p></body></html>