-

2024-12-16 15:36:18

cogdog@cosocial.ca

Question for especially those who rely on #alttext . Is there any value in using names of colors in a photograph? I see ones using “pink ribbon”, “blue sky”, “yellow flower ” and I would think that has little meaning. I’ve been switching to more use of “bright”, “vivid”, “multi-colored”, “subdued”, “dim”, etc. Asking for myself.

show all 9 comments

2024-12-16 15:40:15

Stefan Bohacek

stefan@stefanbohacek.online

@cogdog I don't particularly rely on alt text, but it's worth noting that there are different types of blindness, and that not everyone is born blind, and some may experience temporary vision loss.

And blind people can still develop association with colors, so definitely worth including in the description.

2024-12-16 16:58:51

cobalt going beige today

cobalt@awscommunity.social

@cogdog I know so many people who are vision impaired and use software to be able to read alt text. They often see colors, if blurred. I know people who are blind who became blind as adults but remember colors when they were children.

2024-12-17 00:42:15

Jupiter Rowland

jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu

@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

2024-12-17 02:42:31

Stefan Bohacek

stefan@stefanbohacek.online

@jupiter_rowland I'd defer to folks who are a bit more knowledgeable on this topic, but this seems sensible to me!

2024-12-17 04:20:15

Alan Levine

cogdog@cosocial.ca

@jupiter_rowland Thank you this is very helpful.
.
And with vision I can’t say for sure what Prussian Blue is ;-)

2024-12-17 04:23:38

Melissa

mtechman@mastodon.ie

@jupiter_rowland
@cogdog I say yes to the more complete descriptions. I've seen good discussions here with blind people and it makes sense to include color and describe it, so that those who need alt-text have as much information as possible.
From my own experience ( mother of an achromat), there is a lot of value in the vocabulary building, etc.

2024-12-17 04:39:19

Alan Wolf

Lupus@mastodon.social

@cogdog @jupiter_rowland When I write alt tags, I do include color, in part, because many people who are blind or have low vision were sighted in the past, so will understand.

2024-12-17 09:54:21

Jupiter Rowland

jupiter_rowland@hub.netzgemeinde.eu

@Melissa

so that those who need alt-text have as much information as possible.

Well, depending on where in the Fediverse you are, a whole lot can be possible.

I tend to make a whole lot of use of my possibilities. Hubzilla, where I am, doesn't have any character limits, at least none worth worrying about.

Sure, depending on your contacts, it makes sense to limit your alt-texts to no more than 1,500 characters because Mastodon, Misskey and their forks chop them off at this length if they're longer. Even Hubzilla itself can no longer fully display alt-texts of over a few thousand characters because they can't be scrolled. And alt-texts of such length are very uncomfortable for screen reader users because screen readers can't navigate alt-text.

But at least for my original images, I also give long image descriptions in the posts themselves in addition to the ones in the alt-texts. And with "long", I mean not "essay", but "short story". "Excessive" if you want.

My personal limit there is 100,000 characters for the whole post. As far as I know, Mastodon rejects longer posts than that entirely, and other Fediverse server apps have even lower limits, so describing my images actually becomes increasingly pointless. But 100,000 characters of description would take me three or four days to research for and write anyway.

Still, while my image posts remain within that limit, I regularly describe and explain my original images in tens of thousands of characters each. I see it as justified, given the very obscure but potentially curiosity-inducing topic. But others may say my long descriptions are way overkill, hardly anyone even reads them because it may pretty well take one hour to do so, and literally nobody actually needs them.

That's why I'm constantly wondering if I'm going overboard with details in my descriptions. Hence the question at the end of my first comment.

CC: @Alan Levine

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta

2024-12-17 10:12:00

Melissa

mtechman@mastodon.ie

@stefan @cogdog