It might be sufficient to include an 'alt' button amongst the current formatting ones along with a reminder to supply alt text when posting image links.

It would be nice if it could simply be a coding change - and equally nice if people would actually use it (most instructors at the school where I worked ignored it).

It seems nbcnews (for one example) does not include alt text.

Not all sites which host images provide the option, but if you are hosting images it is easy to program a pop-up box asking YOU to provide alternate text (for screen readers, or for images which are no longer available).

In my experience, it is a three step process:

1. hosting images directly
2. having the programming in place to require some response to an alt-text pop-up
3. training users to actually provide the text.

Imgur (for example) has a box for description, but you have to go looking for it. It doesn't pop up as an automatic reminder to add alt text.

I'm suggesting that DU might consider doing the first two. That won't solve the problem all by itself - we have rules against trans-hostility, as an example, that are ignored al the time. People can just as easily ignore the request to provide an image description. But for those of us who would like to be more inclusive, having a pop-up box that requested an an image description or alt text would be a welcome reminder - and probably quite a few who've never considered it before would do so, as well.

W3C has recommended it for ages.

I can drag a photo from one of the folders on my pc and then a new option pops up, allowing me to add an alt text. I follow a fair number of artists there and most of them will not share or boost an image if it doesn't include an alt text.

I never really thought about Mastodon hosting images... but I guess they do!

Anytime you're dragging an image directly to where you want it to appear, rather than to a hosting site (like Imgur, for example) the site is hosting the image.

I think that's what you're asking? It's a good concept that would be difficult in practice. Technically, we could have the software check when someone posts a message to see if the post contains an image. If it does, we could pop up a page for the user asking them to describe the image. But, this would get complicated. What if there are multiple images in the post? Do we handle them all on one page, or do we do a single page for each image?

Unfortunately this would also be onerous for people, especially for those who post OPs with many images, like the toon posts or the Sunday LOLcats. You also have the problem that people would not necessarily describe the images properly. Even if we force them to enter text, they might just put a bunch of spaces, or they might enter an incorrect description because it's funny, or they might write something obscene. That means we'd then have to separately monitor every image description that was entered, essentially creating a separate moderating system for image descriptions.

Those are the initial concerns off the top of my head. I agree that it would be a great thing if all the images were correctly captioned, but as you can see there are many practical hurdles to overcome.

I think we all know the obvious downsides of AI, but that doesn't mean there aren't specific situations where it will actually be useful rather than harmful -- for example, apps for people with vision impairment that can describe images which don't have alt tags are already being created. This kind of tech will quickly overtake any efforts we can make to accurately describe images at our end; it may just be better to leave the problem to third party apps.

Most people don't think about it - as is evident from requests from people who either can't hear (videos) - or can't see (images).

The way I'm familiar with it, it is integrally connected to the image being hosted. When you drag an image into the upload box, a box pops up requesting alt text (essentially an image description). So it is attached to the image at the time it is added.



Image Description: Two boxes, the left in shadow and partially hidden containing an add file box, the right a pop-up box requestis that the user choose to add alternative text (describing the image) or declare that the image is decrative.

As soon as I clicked "add" for the image, the box popped up, and I was prevented from continuing until I made a choice to add text - OR - to decline.

As for being onerous for people who post lots of images - think of the burden that currently falls on those using text readers when navigating this site - how much of the site is inaccessible to them? I don't know if you've run the site through accessibility checkers, but the absence of alternate text for images would likely make it fail.

DU is pretty much the only place I don't add image descriptions. When I'm teaching, all of the software automatically prompted me to add alternate text anytime I posted an image. On facebook, I have several low-vision friends who periodically nudge those of us prone to forget that not everyone can consume electronic media visually. So the fact that I'm not doing it here - when I am more aware of the problem than most - says a lot about the likelihood that people who aren't even aware of the problem will add image descriptions without prompting.

So no, I'm not suggesting that you force people to add text - just make it the default by prompting alternate text, so people have to remember that not everyone can see with their eyes. The "decorative" option, above gives them the option not to add text - but having an automatic pop-up box that requires you make an affirmative choice not to add text makes it likely that more of the site will be accessible, since I don't know of many people who see with their eyes who independently think to add text.

the only time we could ask the user to add a description would be by scanning their post for code indicating that an image was included at the time they posted it, then take them to a separate page (or pop up a box) asking them to include a description. They would have to be presented with this page/box for every image included in the post.

It could be optional but you’d still have all the same problems of people entering incorrect or problematic descriptions. Plus if it’s optional, the number of people describing every image they post is going to be low. So it’s a lot of work for something that wouldn’t be very useful, and as mentioned there are already third party tools in the pipeline for people who need them, which are going to be better than any solution we can come up with…

But being a lot of work for a few people who need it is one of the main complaints by folks when the ADA was passed and required that public accommodations be accessible to all, regardless of disability. Yes, it is somewhat more work for the rest of us - but the additional work each of us has to do to help level the playing field is far less than the work (and expense) folks with disabilities do just to get by - and, as for image descriptions, there aren't even tools for them to get by if the images don't include descriptions.

(And I did start out by saying that the way I've seen it incorporated is when the site itself hosts the images - then it is a simple addition of a text box pop-up whenever there is a upload.)

You're implying that there's a simple solution here that I just can't be bothered to carry out. I'm not saying it's a lot of work for a handful of people so I don't want to do it. I'm saying that any solution I come up with as it applies to DU would be fundamentally ineffective -- it would be a lot of work to create a system that would ultimately do very little for people who are visually impaired.

We will likely never offer full image hosting due to bandwidth and copyright issues, so the suggestion of a textbox upon image upload is moot. Therefore the only way is the way I previously described.

We would be putting up an interrupt page right after people post, asking them to voluntarily add text captions to all the images that they just posted. I think that this will probably annoy people, and if it's voluntary most people won't do it. I don't want to spend a lot of time building a system that annoys people and doesn't work.

If you can think of a better way to do it, I'm absolutely open to suggestions. And honestly, I'll keep thinking on it too to see if there's a solution. But I'm also pointing out that third party tools, which people can get hold of now, or very soon in the future, will likely be able to do the job far more simply and effectively than anything I can build.