Comments on: Now You See It, Now You Don’t

By: buy original art online

buy original art online — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:47:05 +0000

Great post! Now that the campaign towards making sites accessible even to the deaf and the mute is rampant, the use of these ‘decorative images’ is truly useful. But my question is – When and which part of the web site is it okay to use decorative images?

By: fine art portrait paintings

fine art portrait paintings — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:04:46 +0000

When I tried to Google ‘decorative image’ here are some definitions that I got:
1. it is the kind that may be added to a page for visual or design interest
2. Purely decorative images, such as spacer gifs or box corners, which have no meaning to the page content should have a null alt attribute.
3. ecorative images are used for purely esthetic purposes, in order to enhance the visual appeal of a Web page.

By: Léonie Watson

Léonie Watson — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:05:35 +0000

Gifts, it’s a good question. The art of constructing a good alt text isn’t really an art at all. A good place to start is to imagine you’re describing the image to someone over the telephone.

A key fact that’s often overlooked is that a screen reader will identify an object as an image and tell the user this. What this means in terms of alt text, is that it’s not necessary to include the words “Image of…” or “Picture of…”, because the screen reader will already have given that information to the user.

Try to think what the image is for. If it contains specific information, the alt text should indicate exactly the same information. If the image is evocative, then describe the emotions it conveys. If you’re feeling adventurous and have a few minutes to kill, test out your potential alt text on someone whose never seen the image in question, then get them to tell you what they think the image is like. Don’t expect a fully accurate response, it doesn’t work that way, but if you get a pretty good understanding, then you’re on the right track.

By: Léonie Watson

Léonie Watson — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:58:34 +0000

John, personally I would like to know about images such as the heart monitor. Others of course will feel otherwise. The use of background images is absolutely fine, but I’d suggest keeping these questions in the back of your mind when you’re deciding on your approach: why is the image there? If it has no relevance, does it need to be there? If it’s not relevant, should eye candy be translated into mental candy?

By: gifts

gifts — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:35:11 +0000

I completely understand your desire for everyone out there to be responsible and make sure that they add alt text to their images, especially more meaningful images. What do you suggest for people who merely understand how to create a web page in the most basic format just so they can have a portfolio up of their work? Many people who create for the web don’t understand what alt text is, let alone how to write it in order to create anything meaningful to screen readers. We can’t all be stark professionals who know how to navigate the dredges of web building. For me, it’s incredibly difficult to come up with the descriptions needed for alt text. I try but it doesn’t always happen. What do you suggest for someone like me? Especially since I can’t afford to pay someone else to do that type of stuff for my site.

By: John Robertson

John Robertson — Mon, 14 May 2007 08:54:07 +0000

At the moment, I’m redeveloping our site, and as much as possible, I use background images within the CSS. For instance, each section will have a different masthead image, that helps give a sense of being in a new area eg, in the section devoted to health sector reporting, there may be an image of a heart rate monitor.

I’m taking a lot of care that my HTML is logical, so a visually impaired user should have few problems knowing which section of the site they are on…hopefully….but what i’d like to know is whether you think it is unfair to take these images out of the realm of experience of a group of people. Being sourced within the CSS, only someone who can see will know that it is there.

By: john brandt

john brandt — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:43:32 +0000

The issue “to alt or not to alt” has been discussed elsewhere to no conclusion as far as I can tell. My favorite discussion was on the WebAIM list when two blind users got into the fray; one who wanted the null to always be used and one who wanted lots of descriptions.

In the end it was determined that the thing that made these two blind users different was the first person was blind since birth and the second became blind later in life. The first person did not relate to visual imagery, the second longed for it.

I don’t think one can resolve this debate.

I choose to limit alts to only those images that provide the most “essential” information to the user. But it is always a crap shoot.

By: Léonie Watson

Léonie Watson — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:58:44 +0000

Patrick’s right, in as much as it’s difficult to create general rules for this, but I’m not sure I place so much faith in the linguistic capability of body copy.
If every web page were littered with evocative phrases such as “stock photography monstrosities”, then things might be different. The catch is that a phrase like that is only evocative because I know exactly what he means when he writes it.
Perhaps this is the rub. Not every visually impaired person was born that way. I could see perfectly until my mid 20s, so I know exactly what Patrick means by “stock photography monstrosities”, someone who had never seen at all would have less understanding, but even so the description “business men shaking hands” still conveys something to everyone.
Granted, I wouldn’t dwell on such images, but someone else might. That’s the key factor, one person’s monstrosity is another person’s Van Gogh. The thing I’m getting at is that the choice should be theirs, not the developer’s.
Of course, stock photography is something I personally don’t miss in the least…

By: Lee Pilmore

Lee Pilmore — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:18:11 +0000

Images, pictures and graphic design are essential components of the web. Information and it’s structure need to be designed not only to look pretty but to communicate messages and help a user determine “is this a street-wise youth” site or a “trust-worthy shopping” site.

Design defines user experience and helps determine whether it’s a good or bad one. And the use of images has its place. Sure, many web sites use images in jaw-dropping ways (as most web sites still don’t use web standards) but in using CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) we can separate or remove most images from the page, like background patterns and purely aesthetic images used for identity and emotion. In doing this we increase accessibility as assistive technologies, like the screen reader, are unaffected.

It’s all about understanding the purpose of an image. Which images are for expanding content meaning and which are for presentation and branding and marking them up accordingly and semantically.

By: patrick h. lauke

patrick h. lauke — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:23:33 +0000

in many situations, “fluff” images (particularly thinking of those stock photography monstrosities like “businessmen shaking hands” etc) are only there to give a visual representation of the tone of voice that should already be present in a page’s copy. in those situations, i would strongly argue that, even without descriptive alt text, the “mental images” would be conjured up by the tone of voice of the body copy itself.

as ever, it’s impossible to generalise rules for alt…it all depends on context, and on whether or not – even without image and alt – the same meaning and the more ephemeral “feel” are maintained.