-

2026-08-13 23:07:36

alterelefant@mastodontech.de

@feisty_lemming
Definitely. As a sighted person #altText can be very useful when you look at a picture and think: "What am I actually looking at?"
@ChristineMalec

2026-08-14 11:09:00

Jupiter Rowland

jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu

@Frank Heijkamp @Feisty @Christine Malec Maybe I haven't told you this yet, but:

Explanations do not belong into the alt-text!

Alt-text must never contain exclusive information that's neither in the post text nor visible to sighted users in the image.

That's because, just like there are people who cannot see the image, there are people who cannot access alt-text. Be it because of physical disabilities (they don't have at least one sufficiently working hand which is a hard requirement for accessing alt-text), be it because of technical limitations (*nix window managers like i3 or ratpoison don't support pointing devices of any kind, so there's no mouse cursor that could hover over an image).

Any explanations or other information that's only in the alt-text is inaccessible to these people.

Therefore, explanations, creator credits, license information and other extra information always go into the message text!

Reference link if you don't believe me: https://www.kwbell.eu/mastonotes/alt-text-for-mastodon-images/ by @KB

Reference posts from someone who actually can't access alt-texts:

Deborah wrote the following Beitrag Sun, 09 Jul 2023 21:52:21 +0200

@jupiter_rowland The alt texts on the 2 cups aren't a model to follow. The first has good first 2 sentences, but the interpretation, citation, & context are hidden from the many disabled people who can't access the alt; they should be in visible text. In the second, the first 4 sentences are great, but the whole citation should be in visible text. Alt should describe the image; interpretation & citation need to be available to everyone. Putting information in alt *hides* it from most people.

Deborah wrote the following Beitrag Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:51:56 +0200

@jupiter_rowland I cannot speak to what sighted folks praise. I CAN speak to accessibility best practice, where I have substantial expertise. It is best practice to briefly describe the contents of the image, limited to what the OP finds relevant, and including any *relevant* text. It is also accessibility best practice not to include extra information that is not available to users looking at the picture, such as citations or explanations, which should be in visible text.

Deborah wrote the following Beitrag Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:53:20 +0200

@jupiter_rowland it is not harmless to add extra information, because you are creating a different accessibility bug; many people with accessibility needs have no way of accessing the extra information in a picture. So if you add extra information that is only available to people who can hover over an image or use you are denying it to other disabled people. And it is not harmless if it makes a lot of extra text that SR users have to skip over.

Deborah wrote the following Beitrag Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:56:06 +0200

@jupiter_rowland “Done right also means accessibility for people who might not know much about your image's subject matter either.” The person who posted this is simply flat out incorrect. Alt text is INACCESSIBLE to many disabled people. If the extra text is important, it needs to be in visible text.

Deborah wrote the following 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 #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #A11y #Accessibility