Recent searches
Search options
#CWImageDescriptionMeta
0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Replied in thread
@iFixit
You can't on Mastodon. I could, both here on Hubzilla and on (streams) where I post my images.
But I wouldn't have to. Vanilla Mastodon has a character limit of 500. Hubzilla has a character "limit" that's so staggeringly high that nobody knows how high it is because it doesn't matter. (streams), from the same creator and the same software family as Hubzilla, has a character "limit" of over 24,000,000 which is not an arbitrary design decision but simply the size of the database field.
By the way: Both are in the Fediverse, and both are federated with Mastodon, so Mastodon's "all media must have accurate and sufficiently detailed descriptions" rule applies there as well unless you don't care if thousands upon thousands of Mastodon users block you for not supplying image and media descriptions.
In theory, I could publish a video of ten minutes, and in the same post, I could add a full, timestamped description that takes several hours to read. Verbatim transcript of all spoken words. Detailed description of the visuals where "detailed" means "as detailed as Mastodon loves its alt-texts" as in "800 characters of alt-text or more for a close-up of a single flower in front of a blurry background" detailed. Detailed description of all camera movements and cuts. Description of non-spoken-word noises. All timestamped, probably with over a hundred timestamps for the whole description of ten minutes of video.
Now I'm wondering if that could be helpful or actually required, or if it's overkill and actually a hindrance.
CC: @masukomi @GunChleoc
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Mastodon #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #MediaDescription #MediaDescriptions
and it doesn't look like you can attach documents to posts
You can't on Mastodon. I could, both here on Hubzilla and on (streams) where I post my images.
But I wouldn't have to. Vanilla Mastodon has a character limit of 500. Hubzilla has a character "limit" that's so staggeringly high that nobody knows how high it is because it doesn't matter. (streams), from the same creator and the same software family as Hubzilla, has a character "limit" of over 24,000,000 which is not an arbitrary design decision but simply the size of the database field.
By the way: Both are in the Fediverse, and both are federated with Mastodon, so Mastodon's "all media must have accurate and sufficiently detailed descriptions" rule applies there as well unless you don't care if thousands upon thousands of Mastodon users block you for not supplying image and media descriptions.
In theory, I could publish a video of ten minutes, and in the same post, I could add a full, timestamped description that takes several hours to read. Verbatim transcript of all spoken words. Detailed description of the visuals where "detailed" means "as detailed as Mastodon loves its alt-texts" as in "800 characters of alt-text or more for a close-up of a single flower in front of a blurry background" detailed. Detailed description of all camera movements and cuts. Description of non-spoken-word noises. All timestamped, probably with over a hundred timestamps for the whole description of ten minutes of video.
Now I'm wondering if that could be helpful or actually required, or if it's overkill and actually a hindrance.
CC: @masukomi @GunChleoc
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Mastodon #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #MediaDescription #MediaDescriptions
joinfediverse.wikiHubzilla - Join the Fediverse
Replied in thread
@Garry Knight @qurly(not curly)joe This, by the way, is something that next to nobody in the Fediverse knows, and that many will deny and fight with all they can:
Alt-text must never include exclusive information that is neither in the post text nor in the image itself. Such information must always go into the post itself. If you don't have room in the post, add it to a reply or multiple.
That's because not everybody can access alt-text. Certain physical disabilities can make accessing alt-text impossible, for example, if someone can't use their hands. Money quote from way down this comment thread:
Deborah schrieb den folgenden Beitrag Mon, 10 Jul 2023 23:30:45 +0200 @jupiter_rowland
I have a disability that prevents me from seeing alt text, because on almost all platforms, seeing the alt requires having a screenreader or working hands. If you post a picture, is there info that you want somebody who CAN see the picture but DOESN’T have working hands to know? Write that in visible text. If you put that in the alt, you are explicitly excluding people like me.
But you don’t have to overthink it. The description of the image itself is a simple concept.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Inclusion #A11y #Accessibility #QuotePost #QuoteTweet #QuoteToot #QuoteBoost
Alt-text must never include exclusive information that is neither in the post text nor in the image itself. Such information must always go into the post itself. If you don't have room in the post, add it to a reply or multiple.
That's because not everybody can access alt-text. Certain physical disabilities can make accessing alt-text impossible, for example, if someone can't use their hands. Money quote from way down this comment thread:
Deborah schrieb den folgenden Beitrag Mon, 10 Jul 2023 23:30:45 +0200 @jupiter_rowland
I have a disability that prevents me from seeing alt text, because on almost all platforms, seeing the alt requires having a screenreader or working hands. If you post a picture, is there info that you want somebody who CAN see the picture but DOESN’T have working hands to know? Write that in visible text. If you put that in the alt, you are explicitly excluding people like me.
But you don’t have to overthink it. The description of the image itself is a simple concept.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Inclusion #A11y #Accessibility #QuotePost #QuoteTweet #QuoteToot #QuoteBoost
hub.netzgemeinde.euHow far should alt-text for pictures from within virtual worlds go?Super-long rant about accessibility, the length of alt-texts for pictures taken in virtual worlds and incompatibility issues between Mastodon and Hubzilla
Replied in thread
@David Mitchell :CApride:
Let's just say I'm a bit critical about that because, in my opinion, it doesn't work in the Fediverse.
Jupiter Rowland schrieb den folgenden Beitrag Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:30:02 +0200
Sorry, but that's non-sense. At least for anything that goes significantly beyond a real-life cat photo.
If you describe an image through a phone, you describe it to one person. Usually a person whom you know, so you've at least got a rough idea on what they need described. Even more importantly, you can ask that person what they want to know about the image if you don't know. And you get a reply.
If you describe an image for a public Fediverse post, you describe it to millions of Fediverse users and billions of Web users. You can't know what they all want, nor can you generalise what they all want. And you can't even ask one of them what they need described before or while describing, much less all of them. In fact, you can't ask at all. And yet, you have to cater to everyone's needs the same and throw no-one under a bus.
If I see a realistic chance that someone might be interested in some detail in one of my images, I will describe it. It won't be in the shorter description in the alt-text; instead, it will be in the long description which I've always put directly into the post so far, but whose placement I'm currently reconsidering. If something is unfamiliar enough to enough people that it requires an explanation, I will explain it in the long description.
Right now, only meme posts are an exception. They don't need as much of a visual description as long as I stick to the template, and a poll has revealed that people do prefer externally linked third-party explanations over my own ones blowing the character count of the post out of proportion. This is the one time that I can safely assume that I actually know what most people want.
@accessibility group @a11y group
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Inclusion #A11y #Accessibility
CC: @Monstreline @Claire (sometimes Carla) @qurly(not curly)joe
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #QuotePost #QuoteTweet #QuoteToot #QuoteBoost
Mostly, just imagine you’re telling your friend over the phone about image you’re looking at and what they would need to know.
Let's just say I'm a bit critical about that because, in my opinion, it doesn't work in the Fediverse.
Jupiter Rowland schrieb den folgenden Beitrag Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:30:02 +0200
You can't describe images in Fediverse posts like over the phone
Allegedly, a "good" advice for image descriptions is always to describe images like you'd describe them to someone on a landline phone.Sorry, but that's non-sense. At least for anything that goes significantly beyond a real-life cat photo.
If you describe an image through a phone, you describe it to one person. Usually a person whom you know, so you've at least got a rough idea on what they need described. Even more importantly, you can ask that person what they want to know about the image if you don't know. And you get a reply.
If you describe an image for a public Fediverse post, you describe it to millions of Fediverse users and billions of Web users. You can't know what they all want, nor can you generalise what they all want. And you can't even ask one of them what they need described before or while describing, much less all of them. In fact, you can't ask at all. And yet, you have to cater to everyone's needs the same and throw no-one under a bus.
If I see a realistic chance that someone might be interested in some detail in one of my images, I will describe it. It won't be in the shorter description in the alt-text; instead, it will be in the long description which I've always put directly into the post so far, but whose placement I'm currently reconsidering. If something is unfamiliar enough to enough people that it requires an explanation, I will explain it in the long description.
Right now, only meme posts are an exception. They don't need as much of a visual description as long as I stick to the template, and a poll has revealed that people do prefer externally linked third-party explanations over my own ones blowing the character count of the post out of proportion. This is the one time that I can safely assume that I actually know what most people want.
@accessibility group @a11y group
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Inclusion #A11y #Accessibility
CC: @Monstreline @Claire (sometimes Carla) @qurly(not curly)joe
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #QuotePost #QuoteTweet #QuoteToot #QuoteBoost
Replied in thread
@Ángela Stella Matutina I'm talking about people who can't access alt-text due to physical disabilities.
People with a strong tremor who cannot move a mouse cursor onto an image and keep it there steadily. They exist. It was one of them who told me that explanations don't belong into alt-text.
Quadriplegic people or amputees. They operate their computers by poking the keyboard with a headpointer strapped to their forehead or with a kind of pen that they hold in their mouth. They have no way of using pointing devices whatsoever. They cannot move a mouse cursor onto an image because they don't have a mouse cursor. They use their computers entirely over the keyboard.
All these people do not necessarily have a way of making alt-text a) appear and b) stay where it is for long enough for them to read it.
If you regularly have a lot to explain in your images, don't put these explanations into the alt-text, just because you've only got 500 characters in your toots. Instead, move someplace in the Fediverse that offers more characters (e.g. Misskey: 3,000; Akkoma: 5,000; Friendica: unlimited).
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta
#AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
People with a strong tremor who cannot move a mouse cursor onto an image and keep it there steadily. They exist. It was one of them who told me that explanations don't belong into alt-text.
Quadriplegic people or amputees. They operate their computers by poking the keyboard with a headpointer strapped to their forehead or with a kind of pen that they hold in their mouth. They have no way of using pointing devices whatsoever. They cannot move a mouse cursor onto an image because they don't have a mouse cursor. They use their computers entirely over the keyboard.
All these people do not necessarily have a way of making alt-text a) appear and b) stay where it is for long enough for them to read it.
If you regularly have a lot to explain in your images, don't put these explanations into the alt-text, just because you've only got 500 characters in your toots. Instead, move someplace in the Fediverse that offers more characters (e.g. Misskey: 3,000; Akkoma: 5,000; Friendica: unlimited).
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta
#AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
hub.netzgemeinde.euNetzgemeinde/Hubzilla
Replied in thread
@Alt Text Hall of Fame @David Bloom Yes.
Explanations, or any other information available neither in the image nor in the post text, must never ever go into the alt-text. That's because not everyone can access alt-text. And to those who can't access alt-text, any information exclusively available in alt-text is inaccessible and therefore lost.
#AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
Explanations, or any other information available neither in the image nor in the post text, must never ever go into the alt-text. That's because not everyone can access alt-text. And to those who can't access alt-text, any information exclusively available in alt-text is inaccessible and therefore lost.
#AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
hub.netzgemeinde.euNetzgemeinde/Hubzilla
Replied in thread
@Dr. Daniel Dizdarevic It isn't just because of compression, nor is it because I scale my images down from my original 2100x1400 renderings to 800x533.
As I've said: I don't describe the image with the things in it. I describe the things. Not as they appear in the image, but as they are in-world where I can walk closer to them or move the camera closer to them. It's like an image with a near-infinite resolution.
For example, if there's a light grey blob in the image, four pixels wide, three pixels high, I describe it as what it is in-world, a white sign with three lines of black writing on it. I transcribe the text on the sign 100% verbatim including all spelling mistakes, I translate it afterwards if it isn't in English, I may even explain the text if someone out there needs an explanation, and I may go as far as naming and describing the typeface.
Or if there are two by two pixels on different levels between red and white, I describe them as what they are in-world, a strawberry cocktail in a conical glass, somewhat like a Martini glass. And I slap an "alcohol" content warning on the whole post. Nowadays, I'd even flag the image sensitive just because of these four pixels.
I used to go as far as describing images within my image and even images within images within my image at higher levels of detail than anyone else would describe their own images. I used to describe things that weren't even visible in-world in the place shown in the image. Pictures of places that I would have to walk or even teleport to to be able to describe them. Textures that I would have to make visible otherwise to be able to see all details.
The last time I've described an image in an image with details not visible in the place shown in my image was in this post. I used almost 5,000 characters to describe a poster on the info board. I had to walk to the place displayed in the image on the poster to be able to describe it. The description of the image within the image got so lengthy that, when I was done, I had to remind the reader that I'm returning to describing "my" image. And I actually "cheated" by adjusting the camera in such a way that one of the three posters on the info board is entirely concealed behind a tree trunk because it would have been painfully difficult to describe.
I stopped going that deep when I wrote the image description for what will probably remain my last image post on this channel. The long description was already growing absolutely humongous, and it's my longest one to date with over 60,000 characters. I had actually thought this scene would be easy to describe.
The problem I encountered was that there were simply too many images within images within my image. There's one teleporter near the left-hand edge with a preview image that made me reconsider. In-world, no matter how close I move the camera to the preview image, it mostly shows a square area that appear to be tan all over except for something dark and unidentifiable in the middle.
Actually, however, the place shown in the preview image has hundreds of single-destination teleporters. Several dozen of them are activated and have one preview image each of their destination. I teleported there to take closer looks at everything. I was actually about to write a description of that "teleport station" when I realised that I also had to describe every single one of these preview images, at least those that face the camera in the preview image on the teleporter in the place that I was originally describing. And some of these preview images had images in them in turn.
I would have had to describe probably over a hundred images. In dozens of images. On teleporters which are shown in yet another image on a sub-pixel level. In an image description which was already going out of hand length-wise. On the second day that I was working on that image description. I would have had to teleport at least three times from the place shown in my image to be able to describe these sub-sub-subimages.
That was when I decided to sacrifice details for convenience and only describe what's visible in-world within the borders of the image, excluding both objects that are entirely obstructed by something else and surfaces that entirely face away from the point of view. I do fully transcribe any text that's partially obstructed, though, although I'm considering two transcripts of such texts, namely one transcript of what's visible and one full transcript for better understanding.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #Metaverse #VirtualWorlds #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta
As I've said: I don't describe the image with the things in it. I describe the things. Not as they appear in the image, but as they are in-world where I can walk closer to them or move the camera closer to them. It's like an image with a near-infinite resolution.
For example, if there's a light grey blob in the image, four pixels wide, three pixels high, I describe it as what it is in-world, a white sign with three lines of black writing on it. I transcribe the text on the sign 100% verbatim including all spelling mistakes, I translate it afterwards if it isn't in English, I may even explain the text if someone out there needs an explanation, and I may go as far as naming and describing the typeface.
Or if there are two by two pixels on different levels between red and white, I describe them as what they are in-world, a strawberry cocktail in a conical glass, somewhat like a Martini glass. And I slap an "alcohol" content warning on the whole post. Nowadays, I'd even flag the image sensitive just because of these four pixels.
I used to go as far as describing images within my image and even images within images within my image at higher levels of detail than anyone else would describe their own images. I used to describe things that weren't even visible in-world in the place shown in the image. Pictures of places that I would have to walk or even teleport to to be able to describe them. Textures that I would have to make visible otherwise to be able to see all details.
The last time I've described an image in an image with details not visible in the place shown in my image was in this post. I used almost 5,000 characters to describe a poster on the info board. I had to walk to the place displayed in the image on the poster to be able to describe it. The description of the image within the image got so lengthy that, when I was done, I had to remind the reader that I'm returning to describing "my" image. And I actually "cheated" by adjusting the camera in such a way that one of the three posters on the info board is entirely concealed behind a tree trunk because it would have been painfully difficult to describe.
I stopped going that deep when I wrote the image description for what will probably remain my last image post on this channel. The long description was already growing absolutely humongous, and it's my longest one to date with over 60,000 characters. I had actually thought this scene would be easy to describe.
The problem I encountered was that there were simply too many images within images within my image. There's one teleporter near the left-hand edge with a preview image that made me reconsider. In-world, no matter how close I move the camera to the preview image, it mostly shows a square area that appear to be tan all over except for something dark and unidentifiable in the middle.
Actually, however, the place shown in the preview image has hundreds of single-destination teleporters. Several dozen of them are activated and have one preview image each of their destination. I teleported there to take closer looks at everything. I was actually about to write a description of that "teleport station" when I realised that I also had to describe every single one of these preview images, at least those that face the camera in the preview image on the teleporter in the place that I was originally describing. And some of these preview images had images in them in turn.
I would have had to describe probably over a hundred images. In dozens of images. On teleporters which are shown in yet another image on a sub-pixel level. In an image description which was already going out of hand length-wise. On the second day that I was working on that image description. I would have had to teleport at least three times from the place shown in my image to be able to describe these sub-sub-subimages.
That was when I decided to sacrifice details for convenience and only describe what's visible in-world within the borders of the image, excluding both objects that are entirely obstructed by something else and surfaces that entirely face away from the point of view. I do fully transcribe any text that's partially obstructed, though, although I'm considering two transcripts of such texts, namely one transcript of what's visible and one full transcript for better understanding.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #Metaverse #VirtualWorlds #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta
hub.netzgemeinde.euInspector Jupiter Rowland, Scotland Yard...Taking a fully monochrome avatar to a fully monochrome place in OpenSim; CW: long (26,312 characters, including 889 characters of actual post and 25,271 characters in the image description)
Replied in thread
@Dr. Daniel Dizdarevic I always consider "let them ask if they want to know" bad style for such elementary information. It seems to me like one of these things where Mastodon's good alt-text proponents may criticise you for not mentioning it right away.
That is, I wouldn't put that information into the alt-text. I only have about 900 or 1,000 characters at my disposal for describing an image in alt-text. Mastodon, Misskey and their forks chop alt-texts over 1,500 characters off in posts from outside, and I need the rest of the characters to explain where a longer and more detailed description can be found for as long as there are still instances of Mastodon under 4.4 around.
This is information that would go into said long description. I've always put the long description into the post itself where I technically don't have any character limits. The limit of 100,000 characters above which Mastodon may completely reject posts is not much to worry about either as long as I don't have multiple highly detailed images with little in common to describe.
Leaving out the information where an image is from, unless I have very good reasons to keep the location secret, feels like not giving a long description at all. And not giving the long and detailed description, in the case of my original images, is like omitting the alt-text for "normal" images entirely.
I've asked the above question because I have a series of images which are special cases. If surroundings were visible in the images and not too generic, I would definitely explain where the image was made, not although, but because next to nobody in the Fediverse could tell from looking at the image where it was made because even the sighted users would never have seen anything like it before.
I want to give everyone in the Fediverse the chance to see the image not only like any sighted person sees it, but like I see the original. This is also why I describe details and transcribe text so tiny that they're basically invisible in the image at its given resolution.
But in this special case, the images don't carry any information at all on where they're from. In other words, the information where they're from might be completely useless. Or it might not.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #Metaverse #VirtualWorlds #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility
That is, I wouldn't put that information into the alt-text. I only have about 900 or 1,000 characters at my disposal for describing an image in alt-text. Mastodon, Misskey and their forks chop alt-texts over 1,500 characters off in posts from outside, and I need the rest of the characters to explain where a longer and more detailed description can be found for as long as there are still instances of Mastodon under 4.4 around.
This is information that would go into said long description. I've always put the long description into the post itself where I technically don't have any character limits. The limit of 100,000 characters above which Mastodon may completely reject posts is not much to worry about either as long as I don't have multiple highly detailed images with little in common to describe.
Leaving out the information where an image is from, unless I have very good reasons to keep the location secret, feels like not giving a long description at all. And not giving the long and detailed description, in the case of my original images, is like omitting the alt-text for "normal" images entirely.
I've asked the above question because I have a series of images which are special cases. If surroundings were visible in the images and not too generic, I would definitely explain where the image was made, not although, but because next to nobody in the Fediverse could tell from looking at the image where it was made because even the sighted users would never have seen anything like it before.
I want to give everyone in the Fediverse the chance to see the image not only like any sighted person sees it, but like I see the original. This is also why I describe details and transcribe text so tiny that they're basically invisible in the image at its given resolution.
But in this special case, the images don't carry any information at all on where they're from. In other words, the information where they're from might be completely useless. Or it might not.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #Metaverse #VirtualWorlds #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility
hub.netzgemeinde.euNetzgemeinde/Hubzilla
Replied in thread
@Alan Levine Judging by the advice I've read so far, it's always best to describe the colour using basic colours plus attributes such as brightness, saturation and what other basic colour or colours the colour you describe is leaning towards.
For example, "light, yellowish orange", "a darker, slightly less saturated, slightly more brownish tone of orange", "various shades of slightly yellowish, medium-light-to-medium brown", "a solid, slightly pale medium blue with a minimal hint of green", "a medium-dark wood texture, slightly reddish, slightly greyish". All actually used by me in the long descriptions in (content warning: eye contact) this image post.
If the name of the colour plays a role, use it and then describe the colour in the same way as above. Blind or visually-impaired people may not know what Prussian blue or Burgundy red looks like.
@Stefan Bohacek @
Faerie @cobalt @Tanya McGee Wheatley 
What do you say, is that appropriate, complete overkill or still insufficient?
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
For example, "light, yellowish orange", "a darker, slightly less saturated, slightly more brownish tone of orange", "various shades of slightly yellowish, medium-light-to-medium brown", "a solid, slightly pale medium blue with a minimal hint of green", "a medium-dark wood texture, slightly reddish, slightly greyish". All actually used by me in the long descriptions in (content warning: eye contact) this image post.
If the name of the colour plays a role, use it and then describe the colour in the same way as above. Blind or visually-impaired people may not know what Prussian blue or Burgundy red looks like.
@Stefan Bohacek @
Faerie @cobalt @Tanya McGee Wheatley What do you say, is that appropriate, complete overkill or still insufficient?#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
Replied in thread
@Darrell Hilliker 
I think that's part of the issue, even if it's unavoidable: There's no one way to please everyone. And the more niche and special your content is, the harder it becomes to please as many disabled people as possible.
There's a saying: "Nothing about us without us." Don't assume what disabled people may need. Ask them. Talk to them. Listen to them.
But I guess the attitude in the Fediverse is that everything is said, everything is defined, everything is set in stone, and it'll work in 100% of all cases. No need to talk about it. You're expected to know it. Just do it.
I mean, I could just carry on assuming, based on what I've read here and there, even if that's technically the wrong thing. I know that there are at least some people who enjoy what I do, for whom it may be helpful.
I could just go on doing that and improving that, for any definition of improving. I could go on until enough people complain to me that I'm doing it completely wrong, and that staggering level of detail is bad for magnitudes more people than it helps. But this is unlikely to happen, seeing as how little feedback I receive.
I mean, at the end of the day, I can't really know whom I describe my images for. Do blind or visually impaired users even come across my image posts, seeing as they come from two different channels than this one now? Do those come across my image posts who demand sanctions for everyone who doesn't describe their images sufficiently? Are my extensive image descriptions and explanations useful for anyone?
Still, I go on putting huge efforts into describing them for the random stranger who stumbles upon one of them on some federated timeline, regardless of whether they're visually-impaired, blessed with a terribly slow Internet connection or a fully sighted alt-text enforcer.
And I will most likely go on increasing my efforts where I can. I'm currently polishing my way of describing persons or rather avatars. After all, I can see the alt-text quality requirements in the Fediverse be constantly raised, too. I need to stay ahead of them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility
I think that's part of the issue, even if it's unavoidable: There's no one way to please everyone. And the more niche and special your content is, the harder it becomes to please as many disabled people as possible.There's a saying: "Nothing about us without us." Don't assume what disabled people may need. Ask them. Talk to them. Listen to them.
But I guess the attitude in the Fediverse is that everything is said, everything is defined, everything is set in stone, and it'll work in 100% of all cases. No need to talk about it. You're expected to know it. Just do it.
I mean, I could just carry on assuming, based on what I've read here and there, even if that's technically the wrong thing. I know that there are at least some people who enjoy what I do, for whom it may be helpful.
I could just go on doing that and improving that, for any definition of improving. I could go on until enough people complain to me that I'm doing it completely wrong, and that staggering level of detail is bad for magnitudes more people than it helps. But this is unlikely to happen, seeing as how little feedback I receive.
I mean, at the end of the day, I can't really know whom I describe my images for. Do blind or visually impaired users even come across my image posts, seeing as they come from two different channels than this one now? Do those come across my image posts who demand sanctions for everyone who doesn't describe their images sufficiently? Are my extensive image descriptions and explanations useful for anyone?
Still, I go on putting huge efforts into describing them for the random stranger who stumbles upon one of them on some federated timeline, regardless of whether they're visually-impaired, blessed with a terribly slow Internet connection or a fully sighted alt-text enforcer.
And I will most likely go on increasing my efforts where I can. I'm currently polishing my way of describing persons or rather avatars. After all, I can see the alt-text quality requirements in the Fediverse be constantly raised, too. I need to stay ahead of them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility
hub.netzgemeinde.eu"Nothing About Us Without Us", only it still is without them most of the timeWhen disabled Fediverse users demand participation in accessibility discussions, but there are no discussions in the first place, and they themselves don't even seem to be available to give accessibility feedback
Replied in thread
@Ángela Stella Matutina That's good.
I've asked because I've got the feeling that alt-text/image description requirements are constantly being refined and raised in the Fediverse, and more and more existing descriptions won't pass anymore.
See, I usually spend hours on meme posts, both describing the image in the alt-text and explaining it in the post. As for my original images, it can take me days to describe them twice over, once in a "short" description in the alt-text that's actually already fairly long, once in a "long" description the size of an essay or even a short story in the post itself.
And I'm honestly waiting for the first to be so dissatisfied with that that they reply with their own alt-text and order me to both replace my alt-text with theirs and remove the long description from my post or else.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
I've asked because I've got the feeling that alt-text/image description requirements are constantly being refined and raised in the Fediverse, and more and more existing descriptions won't pass anymore.
See, I usually spend hours on meme posts, both describing the image in the alt-text and explaining it in the post. As for my original images, it can take me days to describe them twice over, once in a "short" description in the alt-text that's actually already fairly long, once in a "long" description the size of an essay or even a short story in the post itself.
And I'm honestly waiting for the first to be so dissatisfied with that that they reply with their own alt-text and order me to both replace my alt-text with theirs and remove the long description from my post or else.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
hub.netzgemeinde.euNetzgemeinde/Hubzilla
Replied in thread
@Jim Salter Four points:
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
- Don't use line feeds in alt-text. Always make it one paragraph.
- Always end your sentences properly, e.g. with a full stop (that's a period for y'all Americans).
- Don't use quotes like on a computer keyboard. They may break alt-text. No, seriously, they may. Use actual, typographically correct quote (“”) instead.
- All-caps may irritate screen readers. I know that all text in an image must be transcribed verbatim, but all-caps are an exception. Transcribe them normally and, if you deem it important, tell people separately that the text is in all-caps.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
hub.netzgemeinde.euNetzgemeinde/Hubzilla
Replied in thread
@Emma (IPG) The readability aspect is interesting. It directly contradicts those who say that if text is illegible in the image, it doesn't have to or even mustn't be transcribed. And I myself go as far as transcribing text that's so tiny that it's invisible.
But: Information that is not available in the image and not in the actual post either must never go into the alt-text!
Not everyone can access alt-text. Not everyone is on a phone. Not all possible frontends support alt-text. And some people are phyiscally incapable of accessing alt-text, for example, because they can't use a pointing device such as a mouse or a trackball.
If information is only available in the alt-text and nowhere else, it is completely inaccessible and therefore lost to a whole lot of people.
Thus, explanations must always go somewhere where they can access them, ideally into the post.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility
But: Information that is not available in the image and not in the actual post either must never go into the alt-text!
Not everyone can access alt-text. Not everyone is on a phone. Not all possible frontends support alt-text. And some people are phyiscally incapable of accessing alt-text, for example, because they can't use a pointing device such as a mouse or a trackball.
If information is only available in the alt-text and nowhere else, it is completely inaccessible and therefore lost to a whole lot of people.
Thus, explanations must always go somewhere where they can access them, ideally into the post.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility
hub.netzgemeinde.euNetzgemeinde/Hubzilla
Replied in thread
@Ciara And yet, there are people trying to talk me out of it. For example, I shouldn't transcribe text that's so tiny that it isn't even recognisable in the image as text because it's only a blob of a dozen pixels. They say that 40,000 or 60,000 characters of description and explanations for one image are too much.
The only thing I'm reconsidering myself currently is whether to keep these monster descriptions in the post or put them into external documents and link to them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
The only thing I'm reconsidering myself currently is whether to keep these monster descriptions in the post or put them into external documents and link to them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
hub.netzgemeinde.euThe upcycling and upgrading of Clutterfly furniture continues14 more boxes of upgraded Clutterfly items released; CW: long post (almost 49,000 characters due to extremely long image descriptions, but the main post text itself is 770 characters long), eye contact (technically invisible, but present), food (berries and candy canes, technically invisible, but...
Replied in thread
@Ciara @Boab I guess there are enough signs that my image descriptions are hand-written, especially for my original virtual world renderings.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
- Alt-texts which lately keep reaching exactly 1,500 characters or only few characters short of that limit.
- Alt-texts that also mention an even longer image description in the post. And there is an even longer image description in the post. Who asks an AI to describe an image in lots of details and then again in even more details?
- No AI can produce image descriptions with five-digit character counts like the long one in the post.
- Excessive detail information about an absolutely obscure niche topic in the long description.
- Description of visual details that aren't visible at the image's resolution.
- Transcripts of text that isn't legible or not even visible at the image's resolution.
- Sometimes I run an extra thread with an image-describing log.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta
Mastodon.greenCiara (@CiaraNi@mastodon.green)13.2K Posts, 2.29K Following, 2.53K Followers · I post about books. I post photos I snap while wandering about. I post in English, dansk and Danglish.
I mostly hang around these spaces:
#Books #Audiobooks #ShortStories
#Libraries #Bibliotek #Fredagsbog
#SilentSunday #ClimateDiary #Aarhus
Banner: Aarhus skyline and bay.
Profile pic: Me, white, dark shortish hair, tallish, emerging from a tunnel, smiling, happy, wearing a bright red leopard-print dress because that’s the sort of thing a woman in her 50s can happily wear because who cares.
Continued thread
This might go further than I've expected.
Whenever I post a meme about nomadic identity, I'll have to explain nomadic identity in the post. But I'll probably also always have to explain Hubzilla and the streams repository and their entire family tree of forks so that people understand my explanation of nomadic identity.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Memes
Whenever I post a meme about nomadic identity, I'll have to explain nomadic identity in the post. But I'll probably also always have to explain Hubzilla and the streams repository and their entire family tree of forks so that people understand my explanation of nomadic identity.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Memes
hub.netzgemeinde.euNetzgemeinde/Hubzilla