#fediversemeta — Public Fediverse posts

@Nicolas Mouart noPhD, noMA No. I'm someone who wants to write image descriptions and alt-text not somehow, but the best way I can.

For this, I've been gathering information from a whole lot of sources for more than three years. More recently, I've started compiling it in a wiki so I can share it with others. When the wiki is done, it will have over 30 individual rules and guidelines for describing images and writing alt-texts.

125 characters as a limit are widespread because screen readers used to have a 125-character hard cap at some point in the 2010s or so. They simply couldn't read alt-texts beyond the 125-character mark. A while later, the hard limit was raised to 200 characters.

Nowadays, there is no hard character limit in screen readers to speak of anymore. Mastodon user @Eric Eggert says so, too: https://yatil.net/blog/there-is-no-character-limit-for-alt-text

The lowest actual character limit that must be heeded in the Fediverse is 512 characters. It is imposed by Misskey, a microblogging server application that's part of the Fediverse and fully federated with Mastodon, but more powerful than Mastodon (https://misskey-hub.net/en/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misskey), as well as its various forks and forks of forks such as Calckey (defunct, but servers still exist), Firefish (ditto), Iceshrimp-JS, Sharkey, Catodon or CherryPick.

By design, Misskey is supposed to truncate alt-texts that are longer than 512 characters at the 512-character mark. However, due to a bug that still isn't fixed, it deletes the alt-text instead. The same applies to all the "Forkeys". If you write a longer alt-text, users on Misskey and the Forkeys will believe you haven't supplied an alt-text to begin with. You take a big effort upon you and write this monster of an alt-text, and regardless, users on Misskey, Sharkey & Co. will think you're another ableist swine who can't be bothered.

The only other thing that speaks against the 1000+-character alt-texts that are so popular on Mastodon is simply useability: A screen reader can navigate normal text, i.e. "rewind" a few words or to the beginning of the sentence of whatever. It can't navigate alt-text in this way, though. So let's suppose you're having a 1000-character alt-text read out to you. Around the 900-character mark, something distracts you. You have to have the last sentence re-read. No dice. The only thing the screen reader can do is jump back to the beginning of the alt-text and re-read the whole thing.

Still, Mastodon, being as Mastodon-centric as it has always been, loves long alt-texts. For one, it loves to use alt-texts to write around the 500-character limit which, by the way, is very bad.

But it also appears to love long and detailed image descriptions. They appear to have become part of Mastodon's culture. I'm actually waiting for Fediverse users being sanctioned in some way for providing alt-texts that adhere to Web accessibility standards, but that are too short for at least some Mastodon users' standards. In fact, I'm waiting for the first Mastodon user sanctioning someone else because they consider an alt-text of 500 characters too short and lacking details.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Misskey #Forkey #Forkeys #Calckey #Firefish #Iceshrimp #IceshrimpJS #Sharkey #Catodon #CherryPick #MastodonCulture #MastodonCentricity #MastodonNormativity #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta

@Nicolas Mouart noPhD, noMA No. I'm someone who wants to write image descriptions and alt-text not somehow, but the best way I can.

For this, I've been gathering information from a whole lot of sources for more than three years. More recently, I've started compiling it in a wiki so I can share it with others. When the wiki is done, it will have over 30 individual rules and guidelines for describing images and writing alt-texts.

125 characters as a limit are widespread because screen readers used to have a 125-character hard cap at some point in the 2010s or so. They simply couldn't read alt-texts beyond the 125-character mark. A while later, the hard limit was raised to 200 characters.

Nowadays, there is no hard character limit in screen readers to speak of anymore. Mastodon user @Eric Eggert says so, too: https://yatil.net/blog/there-is-no-character-limit-for-alt-text

The lowest actual character limit that must be heeded in the Fediverse is 512 characters. It is imposed by Misskey, a microblogging server application that's part of the Fediverse and fully federated with Mastodon, but more powerful than Mastodon (https://misskey-hub.net/en/; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misskey), as well as its various forks and forks of forks such as Calckey (defunct, but servers still exist), Firefish (ditto), Iceshrimp-JS, Sharkey, Catodon or CherryPick.

By design, Misskey is supposed to truncate alt-texts that are longer than 512 characters at the 512-character mark. However, due to a bug that still isn't fixed, it deletes the alt-text instead. The same applies to all the "Forkeys". If you write a longer alt-text, users on Misskey and the Forkeys will believe you haven't supplied an alt-text to begin with. You take a big effort upon you and write this monster of an alt-text, and regardless, users on Misskey, Sharkey & Co. will think you're another ableist swine who can't be bothered.

The only other thing that speaks against the 1000+-character alt-texts that are so popular on Mastodon is simply useability: A screen reader can navigate normal text, i.e. "rewind" a few words or to the beginning of the sentence of whatever. It can't navigate alt-text in this way, though. So let's suppose you're having a 1000-character alt-text read out to you. Around the 900-character mark, something distracts you. You have to have the last sentence re-read. No dice. The only thing the screen reader can do is jump back to the beginning of the alt-text and re-read the whole thing.

Still, Mastodon, being as Mastodon-centric as it has always been, loves long alt-texts. For one, it loves to use alt-texts to write around the 500-character limit which, by the way, is very bad.

But it also appears to love long and detailed image descriptions. They appear to have become part of Mastodon's culture. I'm actually waiting for Fediverse users being sanctioned in some way for providing alt-texts that adhere to Web accessibility standards, but that are too short for at least some Mastodon users' standards. In fact, I'm waiting for the first Mastodon user sanctioning someone else because they consider an alt-text of 500 characters too short and lacking details.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Misskey #Forkey #Forkeys #Calckey #Firefish #Iceshrimp #IceshrimpJS #Sharkey #Catodon #CherryPick #MastodonCulture #MastodonCentricity #MastodonNormativity #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta

@Nicolas Mouart noPhD, noMA As for the character limit, that's because Gemini is sourcing old and outdated information of which it doesn't know that it's old and outdated.

I'm working on an extensive wiki about image descriptions and alt-texts for the Fediverse. This is the page about how long alt-text can and should be: https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/wiki/jupiter_rowland/How(20)to(20)describe(20)images(20)in(20)the(20)Fediverse/How(20)long(20)can(20)alt-text(20)be(3f)

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

@Nicolas Mouart noPhD, noMA As for the character limit, that's because Gemini is sourcing old and outdated information of which it doesn't know that it's old and outdated.

I'm working on an extensive wiki about image descriptions and alt-texts for the Fediverse. This is the page about how long alt-text can and should be: https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/wiki/jupiter_rowland/How(20)to(20)describe(20)images(20)in(20)the(20)Fediverse/How(20)long(20)can(20)alt-text(20)be(3f)

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

@Feli Sorry, aber das Verlinkte läßt sich nicht immer zwingend zu 100% anwenden und im Fediverse schon mal erst recht nicht.

100 Zeichen sind zum einen eine hoffnungslos veraltete Beschränkung. Zum anderen reichen sie bei so manch einem Bild bei weitem nicht aus, um alle Qualitätskriterien einer guten Bildbeschreibung zu erfüllen. Und glaube mir, ich habe schon genügend Artikel zum Thema Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen gelesen, daß ich weiß, wovon ich spreche. Insbesondere möchte ich hier verweisen auf die Artikel von Veronica Lewis a.k.a. Veronica with Four Eyes (veroniiiica.com), die selbst sehbehindert ist.

Die Regel, daß Text in Bildern immer zu 100% originalidentisch transkribiert werden muß, kenne ich, und damit gehe ich weitgehend konform (bis darauf, daß Text, der im Original in Großbuchstaben geschrieben ist, nicht in Großbuchstaben transkribiert werden darf). Daran halte ich mich selbst, egal, wieviel Text auf meinen eigenen Bildern ist, und egal, ob er auf den Bildern, wie ich sie poste, lesbar ist oder nicht. Aber wie soll das garantiert immer in 100 Zeichen passen?

Aktuell arbeite ich seit etwa anderthalb Jahren (!) gelegentlich an den Bildbeschreibungen für eine Serie von Portraits eines digitalen Avatars in einer virtuellen 3-D-Welt; deshalb habe ich auch seit Sommer 2024 kein einziges gänzlich eigenes Bild mehr gepostet. Die Bilder haben schon einen neutralen weißen Hintergrund, damit ich den Hintergrund nicht beschreiben muß. Nun enthält aber jedes Bild drei oder vier leicht unterschiedliche Outfits. Und in den geplanten Posts mit diesen Bildern geht es um diese Outfits, d. h. die Outfits sind der Kontext.

Ich halte mich dabei an "How to create image descriptions for Red Carpet looks" von Veronica Lewis und bei Farben an die Cooper Hewitt Guidelines for Image Description vom Smithsonian Design Museum. Das heißt, das können keine superkurzen Beschreibungen werden wie z. B. bei Katzenfotos.

Die Bilder sollen sogar wie alle meine eigenen Bilder jeweils zweimal beschrieben werden: Jedes Bild bekommt eine vergleichsweise kurze Beschreibung im Alt-Text. Zusätzlich wird jeder Post einen Block enthalten mit langen, detaillierten Bildbeschreibungen inklusive allen Erklärungen, die nötig sind, um die Bilder und die Beschreibungen zu verstehen. Dieser Block wird wahrscheinlich in jedem Bilderpost jeweils länger als 20.000 Zeichen ausfallen. Das ist notwendig, weil Bilder aus virtuellen Welten im Fediverse zwingend hochdetaillierte Beschreibungen brauchen.

Trotzdem müssen natürlich auch die Beschreibungen in den Alt-Texten gewisse Mindestkriterien erfüllen. In 100 Zeichen oder weniger ist das schlicht und ergreifend unmöglich. Ich habe tatsächlich große Schwierigkeiten, die Alt-Texte auf maximal 1.500 Zeichen einzukürzen. Und nein, die sind nicht mit Füllworten aufgebläht. Ich kann sie nur weiter kürzen, indem ich gemäß den oben verlinkten Artikeln wichtige Informationen entferne.

Generell gelten im Fediverse bei Bildbeschreibungen und Alt-Texten andere Regeln als überall sonst. Das 100-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 125-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 200-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Aus technischen Gründen übrigens auch. Das einzige Limit, das gilt, ist Mastodons 1.500-Zeichen-Limit. Solange Bildbeschreibungen nicht künstlich aufgebläht sind mit Füllworten, persönlichen Wertungen etc., ist alles innerhalb dieser 1.500 Zeichen erlaubt.

Dazu gilt: Wenn jemand dich darum bittet, ein Detail auf deinem Bild genauer zu beschreiben, dann ist deine Bildbeschreibung ungenügend. Auch wenn jemand dich um Erklärungen bittet, ist das zurückzuführen auf Nachlässigkeit deinerseits (wobei allerdings Erklärungen in den Post-Text gehören und nicht in den Alt-Text). Nach Details oder Erklärungen zu fragen, ist fast so schlimm, wie überhaupt um Alt-Text bitten zu müssen.

Wenn du konsequent immer mit Alt-Texten kommst, die nie die 100 Zeichen überschreiten, dann riskierst du, daß dir jemand von Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei deine Alt-Texte als unzureichend um die Ohren haut und dich als faul und ableistisch abstempelt. Wenn du dagegen Bilder mit 1.000 Zeichen und mehr beschreibst, besteht die Chance, daß du in der @Alt Text Hall of Fame landest.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #Ableismus #AbleismusMeta #CWAbleismusMeta #AltTextPolizei #AltTextHallOfFame

@Feli Sorry, aber das Verlinkte läßt sich nicht immer zwingend zu 100% anwenden und im Fediverse schon mal erst recht nicht.

100 Zeichen sind zum einen eine hoffnungslos veraltete Beschränkung. Zum anderen reichen sie bei so manch einem Bild bei weitem nicht aus, um alle Qualitätskriterien einer guten Bildbeschreibung zu erfüllen. Und glaube mir, ich habe schon genügend Artikel zum Thema Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen gelesen, daß ich weiß, wovon ich spreche. Insbesondere möchte ich hier verweisen auf die Artikel von Veronica Lewis a.k.a. Veronica with Four Eyes (veroniiiica.com), die selbst sehbehindert ist.

Die Regel, daß Text in Bildern immer zu 100% originalidentisch transkribiert werden muß, kenne ich, und damit gehe ich weitgehend konform (bis darauf, daß Text, der im Original in Großbuchstaben geschrieben ist, nicht in Großbuchstaben transkribiert werden darf). Daran halte ich mich selbst, egal, wieviel Text auf meinen eigenen Bildern ist, und egal, ob er auf den Bildern, wie ich sie poste, lesbar ist oder nicht. Aber wie soll das garantiert immer in 100 Zeichen passen?

Aktuell arbeite ich seit etwa anderthalb Jahren (!) gelegentlich an den Bildbeschreibungen für eine Serie von Portraits eines digitalen Avatars in einer virtuellen 3-D-Welt; deshalb habe ich auch seit Sommer 2024 kein einziges gänzlich eigenes Bild mehr gepostet. Die Bilder haben schon einen neutralen weißen Hintergrund, damit ich den Hintergrund nicht beschreiben muß. Nun enthält aber jedes Bild drei oder vier leicht unterschiedliche Outfits. Und in den geplanten Posts mit diesen Bildern geht es um diese Outfits, d. h. die Outfits sind der Kontext.

Ich halte mich dabei an "How to create image descriptions for Red Carpet looks" von Veronica Lewis und bei Farben an die Cooper Hewitt Guidelines for Image Description vom Smithsonian Design Museum. Das heißt, das können keine superkurzen Beschreibungen werden wie z. B. bei Katzenfotos.

Die Bilder sollen sogar wie alle meine eigenen Bilder jeweils zweimal beschrieben werden: Jedes Bild bekommt eine vergleichsweise kurze Beschreibung im Alt-Text. Zusätzlich wird jeder Post einen Block enthalten mit langen, detaillierten Bildbeschreibungen inklusive allen Erklärungen, die nötig sind, um die Bilder und die Beschreibungen zu verstehen. Dieser Block wird wahrscheinlich in jedem Bilderpost jeweils länger als 20.000 Zeichen ausfallen. Das ist notwendig, weil Bilder aus virtuellen Welten im Fediverse zwingend hochdetaillierte Beschreibungen brauchen.

Trotzdem müssen natürlich auch die Beschreibungen in den Alt-Texten gewisse Mindestkriterien erfüllen. In 100 Zeichen oder weniger ist das schlicht und ergreifend unmöglich. Ich habe tatsächlich große Schwierigkeiten, die Alt-Texte auf maximal 1.500 Zeichen einzukürzen. Und nein, die sind nicht mit Füllworten aufgebläht. Ich kann sie nur weiter kürzen, indem ich gemäß den oben verlinkten Artikeln wichtige Informationen entferne.

Generell gelten im Fediverse bei Bildbeschreibungen und Alt-Texten andere Regeln als überall sonst. Das 100-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 125-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 200-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Aus technischen Gründen übrigens auch. Das einzige Limit, das gilt, ist Mastodons 1.500-Zeichen-Limit. Solange Bildbeschreibungen nicht künstlich aufgebläht sind mit Füllworten, persönlichen Wertungen etc., ist alles innerhalb dieser 1.500 Zeichen erlaubt.

Dazu gilt: Wenn jemand dich darum bittet, ein Detail auf deinem Bild genauer zu beschreiben, dann ist deine Bildbeschreibung ungenügend. Auch wenn jemand dich um Erklärungen bittet, ist das zurückzuführen auf Nachlässigkeit deinerseits (wobei allerdings Erklärungen in den Post-Text gehören und nicht in den Alt-Text). Nach Details oder Erklärungen zu fragen, ist fast so schlimm, wie überhaupt um Alt-Text bitten zu müssen.

Wenn du konsequent immer mit Alt-Texten kommst, die nie die 100 Zeichen überschreiten, dann riskierst du, daß dir jemand von Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei deine Alt-Texte als unzureichend um die Ohren haut und dich als faul und ableistisch abstempelt. Wenn du dagegen Bilder mit 1.000 Zeichen und mehr beschreibst, besteht die Chance, daß du in der @Alt Text Hall of Fame landest.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #Ableismus #AbleismusMeta #CWAbleismusMeta #AltTextPolizei #AltTextHallOfFame

@Feli Sorry, aber das Verlinkte läßt sich nicht immer zwingend zu 100% anwenden und im Fediverse schon mal erst recht nicht.

100 Zeichen sind zum einen eine hoffnungslos veraltete Beschränkung. Zum anderen reichen sie bei so manch einem Bild bei weitem nicht aus, um alle Qualitätskriterien einer guten Bildbeschreibung zu erfüllen. Und glaube mir, ich habe schon genügend Artikel zum Thema Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen gelesen, daß ich weiß, wovon ich spreche. Insbesondere möchte ich hier verweisen auf die Artikel von Veronica Lewis a.k.a. Veronica with Four Eyes (veroniiiica.com), die selbst sehbehindert ist.

Die Regel, daß Text in Bildern immer zu 100% originalidentisch transkribiert werden muß, kenne ich, und damit gehe ich weitgehend konform (bis darauf, daß Text, der im Original in Großbuchstaben geschrieben ist, nicht in Großbuchstaben transkribiert werden darf). Daran halte ich mich selbst, egal, wieviel Text auf meinen eigenen Bildern ist, und egal, ob er auf den Bildern, wie ich sie poste, lesbar ist oder nicht. Aber wie soll das garantiert immer in 100 Zeichen passen?

Aktuell arbeite ich seit etwa anderthalb Jahren (!) gelegentlich an den Bildbeschreibungen für eine Serie von Portraits eines digitalen Avatars in einer virtuellen 3-D-Welt; deshalb habe ich auch seit Sommer 2024 kein einziges gänzlich eigenes Bild mehr gepostet. Die Bilder haben schon einen neutralen weißen Hintergrund, damit ich den Hintergrund nicht beschreiben muß. Nun enthält aber jedes Bild drei oder vier leicht unterschiedliche Outfits. Und in den geplanten Posts mit diesen Bildern geht es um diese Outfits, d. h. die Outfits sind der Kontext.

Ich halte mich dabei an "How to create image descriptions for Red Carpet looks" von Veronica Lewis und bei Farben an die Cooper Hewitt Guidelines for Image Description vom Smithsonian Design Museum. Das heißt, das können keine superkurzen Beschreibungen werden wie z. B. bei Katzenfotos.

Die Bilder sollen sogar wie alle meine eigenen Bilder jeweils zweimal beschrieben werden: Jedes Bild bekommt eine vergleichsweise kurze Beschreibung im Alt-Text. Zusätzlich wird jeder Post einen Block enthalten mit langen, detaillierten Bildbeschreibungen inklusive allen Erklärungen, die nötig sind, um die Bilder und die Beschreibungen zu verstehen. Dieser Block wird wahrscheinlich in jedem Bilderpost jeweils länger als 20.000 Zeichen ausfallen. Das ist notwendig, weil Bilder aus virtuellen Welten im Fediverse zwingend hochdetaillierte Beschreibungen brauchen.

Trotzdem müssen natürlich auch die Beschreibungen in den Alt-Texten gewisse Mindestkriterien erfüllen. In 100 Zeichen oder weniger ist das schlicht und ergreifend unmöglich. Ich habe tatsächlich große Schwierigkeiten, die Alt-Texte auf maximal 1.500 Zeichen einzukürzen. Und nein, die sind nicht mit Füllworten aufgebläht. Ich kann sie nur weiter kürzen, indem ich gemäß den oben verlinkten Artikeln wichtige Informationen entferne.

Generell gelten im Fediverse bei Bildbeschreibungen und Alt-Texten andere Regeln als überall sonst. Das 100-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 125-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 200-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Aus technischen Gründen übrigens auch. Das einzige Limit, das gilt, ist Mastodons 1.500-Zeichen-Limit. Solange Bildbeschreibungen nicht künstlich aufgebläht sind mit Füllworten, persönlichen Wertungen etc., ist alles innerhalb dieser 1.500 Zeichen erlaubt.

Dazu gilt: Wenn jemand dich darum bittet, ein Detail auf deinem Bild genauer zu beschreiben, dann ist deine Bildbeschreibung ungenügend. Auch wenn jemand dich um Erklärungen bittet, ist das zurückzuführen auf Nachlässigkeit deinerseits (wobei allerdings Erklärungen in den Post-Text gehören und nicht in den Alt-Text). Nach Details oder Erklärungen zu fragen, ist fast so schlimm, wie überhaupt um Alt-Text bitten zu müssen.

Wenn du konsequent immer mit Alt-Texten kommst, die nie die 100 Zeichen überschreiten, dann riskierst du, daß dir jemand von Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei deine Alt-Texte als unzureichend um die Ohren haut und dich als faul und ableistisch abstempelt. Wenn du dagegen Bilder mit 1.000 Zeichen und mehr beschreibst, besteht die Chance, daß du in der @Alt Text Hall of Fame landest.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #Ableismus #AbleismusMeta #CWAbleismusMeta #AltTextPolizei #AltTextHallOfFame

@Feli Sorry, aber das Verlinkte läßt sich nicht immer zwingend zu 100% anwenden und im Fediverse schon mal erst recht nicht.

100 Zeichen sind zum einen eine hoffnungslos veraltete Beschränkung. Zum anderen reichen sie bei so manch einem Bild bei weitem nicht aus, um alle Qualitätskriterien einer guten Bildbeschreibung zu erfüllen. Und glaube mir, ich habe schon genügend Artikel zum Thema Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen gelesen, daß ich weiß, wovon ich spreche. Insbesondere möchte ich hier verweisen auf die Artikel von Veronica Lewis a.k.a. Veronica with Four Eyes (veroniiiica.com), die selbst sehbehindert ist.

Die Regel, daß Text in Bildern immer zu 100% originalidentisch transkribiert werden muß, kenne ich, und damit gehe ich weitgehend konform (bis darauf, daß Text, der im Original in Großbuchstaben geschrieben ist, nicht in Großbuchstaben transkribiert werden darf). Daran halte ich mich selbst, egal, wieviel Text auf meinen eigenen Bildern ist, und egal, ob er auf den Bildern, wie ich sie poste, lesbar ist oder nicht. Aber wie soll das garantiert immer in 100 Zeichen passen?

Aktuell arbeite ich seit etwa anderthalb Jahren (!) gelegentlich an den Bildbeschreibungen für eine Serie von Portraits eines digitalen Avatars in einer virtuellen 3-D-Welt; deshalb habe ich auch seit Sommer 2024 kein einziges gänzlich eigenes Bild mehr gepostet. Die Bilder haben schon einen neutralen weißen Hintergrund, damit ich den Hintergrund nicht beschreiben muß. Nun enthält aber jedes Bild drei oder vier leicht unterschiedliche Outfits. Und in den geplanten Posts mit diesen Bildern geht es um diese Outfits, d. h. die Outfits sind der Kontext.

Ich halte mich dabei an "How to create image descriptions for Red Carpet looks" von Veronica Lewis und bei Farben an die Cooper Hewitt Guidelines for Image Description vom Smithsonian Design Museum. Das heißt, das können keine superkurzen Beschreibungen werden wie z. B. bei Katzenfotos.

Die Bilder sollen sogar wie alle meine eigenen Bilder jeweils zweimal beschrieben werden: Jedes Bild bekommt eine vergleichsweise kurze Beschreibung im Alt-Text. Zusätzlich wird jeder Post einen Block enthalten mit langen, detaillierten Bildbeschreibungen inklusive allen Erklärungen, die nötig sind, um die Bilder und die Beschreibungen zu verstehen. Dieser Block wird wahrscheinlich in jedem Bilderpost jeweils länger als 20.000 Zeichen ausfallen. Das ist notwendig, weil Bilder aus virtuellen Welten im Fediverse zwingend hochdetaillierte Beschreibungen brauchen.

Trotzdem müssen natürlich auch die Beschreibungen in den Alt-Texten gewisse Mindestkriterien erfüllen. In 100 Zeichen oder weniger ist das schlicht und ergreifend unmöglich. Ich habe tatsächlich große Schwierigkeiten, die Alt-Texte auf maximal 1.500 Zeichen einzukürzen. Und nein, die sind nicht mit Füllworten aufgebläht. Ich kann sie nur weiter kürzen, indem ich gemäß den oben verlinkten Artikeln wichtige Informationen entferne.

Generell gelten im Fediverse bei Bildbeschreibungen und Alt-Texten andere Regeln als überall sonst. Das 100-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 125-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 200-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Aus technischen Gründen übrigens auch. Das einzige Limit, das gilt, ist Mastodons 1.500-Zeichen-Limit. Solange Bildbeschreibungen nicht künstlich aufgebläht sind mit Füllworten, persönlichen Wertungen etc., ist alles innerhalb dieser 1.500 Zeichen erlaubt.

Dazu gilt: Wenn jemand dich darum bittet, ein Detail auf deinem Bild genauer zu beschreiben, dann ist deine Bildbeschreibung ungenügend. Auch wenn jemand dich um Erklärungen bittet, ist das zurückzuführen auf Nachlässigkeit deinerseits (wobei allerdings Erklärungen in den Post-Text gehören und nicht in den Alt-Text). Nach Details oder Erklärungen zu fragen, ist fast so schlimm, wie überhaupt um Alt-Text bitten zu müssen.

Wenn du konsequent immer mit Alt-Texten kommst, die nie die 100 Zeichen überschreiten, dann riskierst du, daß dir jemand von Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei deine Alt-Texte als unzureichend um die Ohren haut und dich als faul und ableistisch abstempelt. Wenn du dagegen Bilder mit 1.000 Zeichen und mehr beschreibst, besteht die Chance, daß du in der @Alt Text Hall of Fame landest.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #Ableismus #AbleismusMeta #CWAbleismusMeta #AltTextPolizei #AltTextHallOfFame

@Feli Sorry, aber das Verlinkte läßt sich nicht immer zwingend zu 100% anwenden und im Fediverse schon mal erst recht nicht.

100 Zeichen sind zum einen eine hoffnungslos veraltete Beschränkung. Zum anderen reichen sie bei so manch einem Bild bei weitem nicht aus, um alle Qualitätskriterien einer guten Bildbeschreibung zu erfüllen. Und glaube mir, ich habe schon genügend Artikel zum Thema Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen gelesen, daß ich weiß, wovon ich spreche. Insbesondere möchte ich hier verweisen auf die Artikel von Veronica Lewis a.k.a. Veronica with Four Eyes (veroniiiica.com), die selbst sehbehindert ist.

Die Regel, daß Text in Bildern immer zu 100% originalidentisch transkribiert werden muß, kenne ich, und damit gehe ich weitgehend konform (bis darauf, daß Text, der im Original in Großbuchstaben geschrieben ist, nicht in Großbuchstaben transkribiert werden darf). Daran halte ich mich selbst, egal, wieviel Text auf meinen eigenen Bildern ist, und egal, ob er auf den Bildern, wie ich sie poste, lesbar ist oder nicht. Aber wie soll das garantiert immer in 100 Zeichen passen?

Aktuell arbeite ich seit etwa anderthalb Jahren (!) gelegentlich an den Bildbeschreibungen für eine Serie von Portraits eines digitalen Avatars in einer virtuellen 3-D-Welt; deshalb habe ich auch seit Sommer 2024 kein einziges gänzlich eigenes Bild mehr gepostet. Die Bilder haben schon einen neutralen weißen Hintergrund, damit ich den Hintergrund nicht beschreiben muß. Nun enthält aber jedes Bild drei oder vier leicht unterschiedliche Outfits. Und in den geplanten Posts mit diesen Bildern geht es um diese Outfits, d. h. die Outfits sind der Kontext.

Ich halte mich dabei an "How to create image descriptions for Red Carpet looks" von Veronica Lewis und bei Farben an die Cooper Hewitt Guidelines for Image Description vom Smithsonian Design Museum. Das heißt, das können keine superkurzen Beschreibungen werden wie z. B. bei Katzenfotos.

Die Bilder sollen sogar wie alle meine eigenen Bilder jeweils zweimal beschrieben werden: Jedes Bild bekommt eine vergleichsweise kurze Beschreibung im Alt-Text. Zusätzlich wird jeder Post einen Block enthalten mit langen, detaillierten Bildbeschreibungen inklusive allen Erklärungen, die nötig sind, um die Bilder und die Beschreibungen zu verstehen. Dieser Block wird wahrscheinlich in jedem Bilderpost jeweils länger als 20.000 Zeichen ausfallen. Das ist notwendig, weil Bilder aus virtuellen Welten im Fediverse zwingend hochdetaillierte Beschreibungen brauchen.

Trotzdem müssen natürlich auch die Beschreibungen in den Alt-Texten gewisse Mindestkriterien erfüllen. In 100 Zeichen oder weniger ist das schlicht und ergreifend unmöglich. Ich habe tatsächlich große Schwierigkeiten, die Alt-Texte auf maximal 1.500 Zeichen einzukürzen. Und nein, die sind nicht mit Füllworten aufgebläht. Ich kann sie nur weiter kürzen, indem ich gemäß den oben verlinkten Artikeln wichtige Informationen entferne.

Generell gelten im Fediverse bei Bildbeschreibungen und Alt-Texten andere Regeln als überall sonst. Das 100-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 125-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Das 200-Zeichen-Limit ist Bullshit. Aus technischen Gründen übrigens auch. Das einzige Limit, das gilt, ist Mastodons 1.500-Zeichen-Limit. Solange Bildbeschreibungen nicht künstlich aufgebläht sind mit Füllworten, persönlichen Wertungen etc., ist alles innerhalb dieser 1.500 Zeichen erlaubt.

Dazu gilt: Wenn jemand dich darum bittet, ein Detail auf deinem Bild genauer zu beschreiben, dann ist deine Bildbeschreibung ungenügend. Auch wenn jemand dich um Erklärungen bittet, ist das zurückzuführen auf Nachlässigkeit deinerseits (wobei allerdings Erklärungen in den Post-Text gehören und nicht in den Alt-Text). Nach Details oder Erklärungen zu fragen, ist fast so schlimm, wie überhaupt um Alt-Text bitten zu müssen.

Wenn du konsequent immer mit Alt-Texten kommst, die nie die 100 Zeichen überschreiten, dann riskierst du, daß dir jemand von Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei deine Alt-Texte als unzureichend um die Ohren haut und dich als faul und ableistisch abstempelt. Wenn du dagegen Bilder mit 1.000 Zeichen und mehr beschreibst, besteht die Chance, daß du in der @Alt Text Hall of Fame landest.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta #Ableismus #AbleismusMeta #CWAbleismusMeta #AltTextPolizei #AltTextHallOfFame

@Justin Derrick The question, however, is: What is "high-quality"? How is it defined?

Would the bot go by the definition valid for commercial/scientific/technological websites and blogs, i.e. ideally no more than 125 characters, and only a short and concise visual description with no further information?

Or would the bot go by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards, i.e. the longer and more detailed, the better, any and all extra information is welcome in alt-text (because it doesn't fit into the toot), and the limit is 1,500 characters?

That is, if it were for me, the bot would go look both for alt-texts and for image descriptions in the post text body and judge both. Because I do both at the same time for my original images. An extremely detailed long image description in the post itself (character limit for post and alt-texts combined here: over 16 million) that also comes with all necessary explanations and transcripts of all text in the image, plus an alt-text that's as detailed as 1,500 characters (minus notification about the long description in the post) allow, but with no explanations, and I usually have to leave out text transcripts as well because they're too many.

You may say the alt-text is superfluous if it's just a much shorter version of the long description. But as long as the Mastodon HOA demands there be an alt-text to every image, no matter what (especially seeing as I always hide my image posts behind summaries/content warnings, so you can't see right of the bat that there's a long image description in the post), I add alt-texts to my original images.

I'm actually curious about how the bot would judge my descriptions. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it notices that the bits of text in the image are not transcribed in the alt-text. Maybe it'd be irritated because I have headlines in my long image descriptions, because they're so long that they need two levels of headlines. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it goes strictly by WCAG, and a) the alt-texts exceed 200 characters, b) long image descriptions do not belong into the text body by any known official accessibility standards, and c) neither my alt-texts nor my long descriptions are limited to what's supposed to be important within the context of the post.

Anyway, in the meantime, you can follow the account @Alt Text Hall of Fame and the hashtag #AltTextHallOfFame.

CC: @Simon Brooke

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

@Justin Derrick The question, however, is: What is "high-quality"? How is it defined?

Would the bot go by the definition valid for commercial/scientific/technological websites and blogs, i.e. ideally no more than 125 characters, and only a short and concise visual description with no further information?

Or would the bot go by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards, i.e. the longer and more detailed, the better, any and all extra information is welcome in alt-text (because it doesn't fit into the toot), and the limit is 1,500 characters?

That is, if it were for me, the bot would go look both for alt-texts and for image descriptions in the post text body and judge both. Because I do both at the same time for my original images. An extremely detailed long image description in the post itself (character limit for post and alt-texts combined here: over 16 million) that also comes with all necessary explanations and transcripts of all text in the image, plus an alt-text that's as detailed as 1,500 characters (minus notification about the long description in the post) allow, but with no explanations, and I usually have to leave out text transcripts as well because they're too many.

You may say the alt-text is superfluous if it's just a much shorter version of the long description. But as long as the Mastodon HOA demands there be an alt-text to every image, no matter what (especially seeing as I always hide my image posts behind summaries/content warnings, so you can't see right of the bat that there's a long image description in the post), I add alt-texts to my original images.

I'm actually curious about how the bot would judge my descriptions. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it notices that the bits of text in the image are not transcribed in the alt-text. Maybe it'd be irritated because I have headlines in my long image descriptions, because they're so long that they need two levels of headlines. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it goes strictly by WCAG, and a) the alt-texts exceed 200 characters, b) long image descriptions do not belong into the text body by any known official accessibility standards, and c) neither my alt-texts nor my long descriptions are limited to what's supposed to be important within the context of the post.

Anyway, in the meantime, you can follow the account @Alt Text Hall of Fame and the hashtag #AltTextHallOfFame.

CC: @Simon Brooke

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

@Justin Derrick The question, however, is: What is "high-quality"? How is it defined?

Would the bot go by the definition valid for commercial/scientific/technological websites and blogs, i.e. ideally no more than 125 characters, and only a short and concise visual description with no further information?

Or would the bot go by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards, i.e. the longer and more detailed, the better, any and all extra information is welcome in alt-text (because it doesn't fit into the toot), and the limit is 1,500 characters?

That is, if it were for me, the bot would go look both for alt-texts and for image descriptions in the post text body and judge both. Because I do both at the same time for my original images. An extremely detailed long image description in the post itself (character limit for post and alt-texts combined here: over 16 million) that also comes with all necessary explanations and transcripts of all text in the image, plus an alt-text that's as detailed as 1,500 characters (minus notification about the long description in the post) allow, but with no explanations, and I usually have to leave out text transcripts as well because they're too many.

You may say the alt-text is superfluous if it's just a much shorter version of the long description. But as long as the Mastodon HOA demands there be an alt-text to every image, no matter what (especially seeing as I always hide my image posts behind summaries/content warnings, so you can't see right of the bat that there's a long image description in the post), I add alt-texts to my original images.

I'm actually curious about how the bot would judge my descriptions. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it notices that the bits of text in the image are not transcribed in the alt-text. Maybe it'd be irritated because I have headlines in my long image descriptions, because they're so long that they need two levels of headlines. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it goes strictly by WCAG, and a) the alt-texts exceed 200 characters, b) long image descriptions do not belong into the text body by any known official accessibility standards, and c) neither my alt-texts nor my long descriptions are limited to what's supposed to be important within the context of the post.

Anyway, in the meantime, you can follow the account @Alt Text Hall of Fame and the hashtag #AltTextHallOfFame.

CC: @Simon Brooke

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

@Justin Derrick The question, however, is: What is "high-quality"? How is it defined?

Would the bot go by the definition valid for commercial/scientific/technological websites and blogs, i.e. ideally no more than 125 characters, and only a short and concise visual description with no further information?

Or would the bot go by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards, i.e. the longer and more detailed, the better, any and all extra information is welcome in alt-text (because it doesn't fit into the toot), and the limit is 1,500 characters?

That is, if it were for me, the bot would go look both for alt-texts and for image descriptions in the post text body and judge both. Because I do both at the same time for my original images. An extremely detailed long image description in the post itself (character limit for post and alt-texts combined here: over 16 million) that also comes with all necessary explanations and transcripts of all text in the image, plus an alt-text that's as detailed as 1,500 characters (minus notification about the long description in the post) allow, but with no explanations, and I usually have to leave out text transcripts as well because they're too many.

You may say the alt-text is superfluous if it's just a much shorter version of the long description. But as long as the Mastodon HOA demands there be an alt-text to every image, no matter what (especially seeing as I always hide my image posts behind summaries/content warnings, so you can't see right of the bat that there's a long image description in the post), I add alt-texts to my original images.

I'm actually curious about how the bot would judge my descriptions. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it notices that the bits of text in the image are not transcribed in the alt-text. Maybe it'd be irritated because I have headlines in my long image descriptions, because they're so long that they need two levels of headlines. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it goes strictly by WCAG, and a) the alt-texts exceed 200 characters, b) long image descriptions do not belong into the text body by any known official accessibility standards, and c) neither my alt-texts nor my long descriptions are limited to what's supposed to be important within the context of the post.

Anyway, in the meantime, you can follow the account @Alt Text Hall of Fame and the hashtag #AltTextHallOfFame.

CC: @Simon Brooke

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

@Justin Derrick The question, however, is: What is "high-quality"? How is it defined?

Would the bot go by the definition valid for commercial/scientific/technological websites and blogs, i.e. ideally no more than 125 characters, and only a short and concise visual description with no further information?

Or would the bot go by Mastodon's culture and Mastodon's standards, i.e. the longer and more detailed, the better, any and all extra information is welcome in alt-text (because it doesn't fit into the toot), and the limit is 1,500 characters?

That is, if it were for me, the bot would go look both for alt-texts and for image descriptions in the post text body and judge both. Because I do both at the same time for my original images. An extremely detailed long image description in the post itself (character limit for post and alt-texts combined here: over 16 million) that also comes with all necessary explanations and transcripts of all text in the image, plus an alt-text that's as detailed as 1,500 characters (minus notification about the long description in the post) allow, but with no explanations, and I usually have to leave out text transcripts as well because they're too many.

You may say the alt-text is superfluous if it's just a much shorter version of the long description. But as long as the Mastodon HOA demands there be an alt-text to every image, no matter what (especially seeing as I always hide my image posts behind summaries/content warnings, so you can't see right of the bat that there's a long image description in the post), I add alt-texts to my original images.

I'm actually curious about how the bot would judge my descriptions. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it notices that the bits of text in the image are not transcribed in the alt-text. Maybe it'd be irritated because I have headlines in my long image descriptions, because they're so long that they need two levels of headlines. Maybe it'd flag them "inadequate" because it goes strictly by WCAG, and a) the alt-texts exceed 200 characters, b) long image descriptions do not belong into the text body by any known official accessibility standards, and c) neither my alt-texts nor my long descriptions are limited to what's supposed to be important within the context of the post.

Anyway, in the meantime, you can follow the account @Alt Text Hall of Fame and the hashtag #AltTextHallOfFame.

CC: @Simon Brooke

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

@Monstreline @qurly(not curly)joe @Claire (sometimes Carla) One thing you could do is search mastodon.social for the #AltText hashtag which many put on their posts with alt-text. Also, search mastodon.social for the #AltTextHallOfFame hashtag and follow @Alt Text Hall of Fame.

However, I'm not sure if that will lead to the desired outcome. Checking Mastodon users' alt-texts and the reactions upon these was part of what led myself to what one may argue is "overthinking" image descriptions for the Fediverse. In fact, I ended up describing all my original images twice, including with a long image description in the post itself. And I'm constantly upping my game, improving my style and declaring old image descriptions obsolete because I keep learning new things and trying new things.

Granted, you may not be inspired to go as far as I did, seeing as you've got 500 characters in posts whereas I have hundreds of thousands or even millions. But still, chances are that analysing other people's alt-texts may have you overthink image descriptions even more rather than less.

For reference, here are my latest original image posts in reverse chronological order (the older, the more obsolete):

• Happy 17th birthday, OSgrid!
• Universal Campus: The mother of all mega-regions
• Inspector Jupiter Rowland, Scotland Yard...
• The upcycling and upgrading of Clutterfly furniture continues
• When old meets new: Arcadia Asylum exhibits at OpenSimFest 2023

In each case, the post including image(s) is hidden behind a summary and content warning. In the first post, the images themselves are additionally hidden behind a spoiler tag as an extra safety measure due to their potentially sensitive content.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #OpenSim #OpenSimulator #Metaverse #VirtualWorlds #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta

@Jeffrey D. Stark I don't know for certain what the majority want in general. And I don't know what they'd want in my very specific case.

I can only try and extrapolate what they might want from other Fediverse users' image descriptions and feedback on other Fediverse users' image descriptions, as little as there is.

The problem with this is that I don't post what everyone else posts. Not real-life photographs, not screenshots from social media etc., but renderings from very obscure 3-D virtual worlds. This means that there is next to nothing in my images that anyone is familiar with and that any blind or visually-impaired user has a rough idea what it looks like.

I've seen real-life photographs, sometimes literally focusing on one specific element in them with the whole background blurred out, that were described in over 800 characters. I've seen them be praised for their alt-texts. On the other hand, I've never seen a real-life photograph in the Fediverse be criticised for too much alt-text.

This, however, doesn't easily translate to virtual world renderings. Real-life photographs are much more familiar and much more likely to mostly contain things that people are more or less familiar with. And yet, people love it when they're described in 800 characters and more, all the way to replying with hashtags such as #AltTextAward or #AltTextAwards or #AltTextHallOfFame.

Logical conclusion: If there's more in the images that people aren't familiar with, I'll have to describe more than in these real-life photographs. And there is more in the images that people aren't familiar with.

Virtual world renderings are a largely unexplored edge-case. Only very few people in the Fediverse post these. I think only two describe them. And I'm the only one who really puts some thought into describing them instead of trying to get away with the bare minimum. This means that what I'm trying to do is a first. Nobody has done it before me. There's no prior experience with it.

Thus, I have to go with my own assumptions and conclusions based on a) observations on Mastodon and b) the differences in familiarity between real life and what I post about.

Three things are clear about my images.

First, if sighted people see it, they don't really know what it is, where it is etc.

Second, if non-sighted people come across the image, there is nothing in the image of which they know what it looks like due to having been told often enough what it looks like because they've never been told what anything in the image looks like. But they may want to know what it looks like. And it's their right to know what it looks like.

Third, this topic is such a small niche and so extremely obscure that if you don't know something, you can't just look it up on Wikipedia. You can't even Google it. Generally, the only source of information that could really help you with my pictures, that's me. I'm definitely the only way "to get the larger details and nuances".

And so there's much more in my images that needs to be described. And there's much more that needs to be explained, one of the reasons why I always describe my virtual world renderings twice.

This starts with the location, the place where an image was taken. There are cases in which it does matter where an image was taken. My virtual world renderings are such cases.

If a real-life location is shown in a photo, sighted people may recognise it because it's so famous. Otherwise and for non-sighted people, simple name-dropping is usually sufficient. There's hardly any place in real life that can't be sufficiently mentioned in under 50 characters.

I can't name-drop. It won't tell anyone anything because nobody would know the name I've dropped. If I want to tell people where an image is from, I'll first have to break it down and then explain it and explain the explanation and so forth. I can't tell anyone, sighted or not, where my images are from in under 1,000 characters. Not if I want them to understand it.

As for visual descriptions, the usual advice is to limit yourself to what's important within the context, describe only the one important element in detail and hint at everything else at most. But I don't always have that one important element. I may have about two dozen important elements. Or, more often, the post is about the whole image, the whole scenery, and everything in it is important just the same.

But even if something in the image is more important than something else, I still have to describe everything. I mean, we're talking about what amounts to glances into a whole new universe for 99.999% of all people out there. Sure, many will shrug it off.

Others, however, may be intrigued, curious even. After all, this is evidence that "the Metaverse" is, surprisingly, alive. It is not suggested in AI-generated pictures. It really exists. And it looks better than all of Zuckerberg's propaganda. These people don't care what matters in the image and what doesn't. They go on an exploration trip all across the whole image and take in all the details.

Blind or visually-impaired people can't do this. But they may want to do it. And they've got the right to do it, just like sighted people. So they should be given just the same opportunity to do it. Remember that I can't assume that they know what anything in the image looks like unless there's a real-life counterpart that looks very much the same.

Whenever there's something in one of my images that doesn't exist in real life, I have to assume that nobody knows anything about it. So not only do I need an extensive visual description, but I often also need an extensive explanation of this one item.

Finally, there's one more thing that takes up a lot of room: text transcripts. The rule is that if there is text within the borders of an image, it must be transcribed. I rarely even see the exception "unless it doesn't matter within the context". And, again, it tends to happen that everything in one of my images matters within the context because the context is the very image itself.

What this rule doesn't cover at all is text that is unreadable in the image as it is shown. There is no exception for this kind of text, nor is it explicitly included in this rule. It isn't handled at all. It has never even been thought of. Hence, I must assume that the rule applies to this kind of text just as well.

Before you say that I can't transcribe text that I can't read: I actually can. I don't transcribe text by looking at it in the image. I transcribe text by looking at it in-world. And all of a sudden, those six pixels in a row that are ever so slightly more greenish than the surrounding white are two lines of text. That blot, four pixels wide, three pixels high, is actually a sign with a 1024x768-pixel texture and text that's perfectly legible. That tree trunk in front of that sign? In-world, I can look behind it.

If I can transcribe all this text, and nothing says I must not do so, I assume I must do so. And so I may end up with several dozen transcripts of more or less text which, including their respective contexts in the image description, take up more characters than fit into a Mastodon alt-text. If this is the case, then the text transcripts must go into the long description in the post rather than the short description in the alt-text.

This is not by user request. This is an accessibility rule that I follow.

Now you may say that I don't have to deliver such an enormous infodump at once on a silver platter, whether people want it or not. You may say that they could always ask if they want something more.

But seriously, this is about accessibility. And if people have to ask and then wait for assistance, it isn't accessible. They could just as well ask for the whole image description, and if they don't, I don't have ot write it. It wouldn't make much of a difference.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility

@Jeffrey D. Stark I don't know for certain what the majority want in general. And I don't know what they'd want in my very specific case.

I can only try and extrapolate what they might want from other Fediverse users' image descriptions and feedback on other Fediverse users' image descriptions, as little as there is.

The problem with this is that I don't post what everyone else posts. Not real-life photographs, not screenshots from social media etc., but renderings from very obscure 3-D virtual worlds. This means that there is next to nothing in my images that anyone is familiar with and that any blind or visually-impaired user has a rough idea what it looks like.

I've seen real-life photographs, sometimes literally focusing on one specific element in them with the whole background blurred out, that were described in over 800 characters. I've seen them be praised for their alt-texts. On the other hand, I've never seen a real-life photograph in the Fediverse be criticised for too much alt-text.

This, however, doesn't easily translate to virtual world renderings. Real-life photographs are much more familiar and much more likely to mostly contain things that people are more or less familiar with. And yet, people love it when they're described in 800 characters and more, all the way to replying with hashtags such as #AltTextAward or #AltTextAwards or #AltTextHallOfFame.

Logical conclusion: If there's more in the images that people aren't familiar with, I'll have to describe more than in these real-life photographs. And there is more in the images that people aren't familiar with.

Virtual world renderings are a largely unexplored edge-case. Only very few people in the Fediverse post these. I think only two describe them. And I'm the only one who really puts some thought into describing them instead of trying to get away with the bare minimum. This means that what I'm trying to do is a first. Nobody has done it before me. There's no prior experience with it.

Thus, I have to go with my own assumptions and conclusions based on a) observations on Mastodon and b) the differences in familiarity between real life and what I post about.

Three things are clear about my images.

First, if sighted people see it, they don't really know what it is, where it is etc.

Second, if non-sighted people come across the image, there is nothing in the image of which they know what it looks like due to having been told often enough what it looks like because they've never been told what anything in the image looks like. But they may want to know what it looks like. And it's their right to know what it looks like.

Third, this topic is such a small niche and so extremely obscure that if you don't know something, you can't just look it up on Wikipedia. You can't even Google it. Generally, the only source of information that could really help you with my pictures, that's me. I'm definitely the only way "to get the larger details and nuances".

And so there's much more in my images that needs to be described. And there's much more that needs to be explained, one of the reasons why I always describe my virtual world renderings twice.

This starts with the location, the place where an image was taken. There are cases in which it does matter where an image was taken. My virtual world renderings are such cases.

If a real-life location is shown in a photo, sighted people may recognise it because it's so famous. Otherwise and for non-sighted people, simple name-dropping is usually sufficient. There's hardly any place in real life that can't be sufficiently mentioned in under 50 characters.

I can't name-drop. It won't tell anyone anything because nobody would know the name I've dropped. If I want to tell people where an image is from, I'll first have to break it down and then explain it and explain the explanation and so forth. I can't tell anyone, sighted or not, where my images are from in under 1,000 characters. Not if I want them to understand it.

As for visual descriptions, the usual advice is to limit yourself to what's important within the context, describe only the one important element in detail and hint at everything else at most. But I don't always have that one important element. I may have about two dozen important elements. Or, more often, the post is about the whole image, the whole scenery, and everything in it is important just the same.

But even if something in the image is more important than something else, I still have to describe everything. I mean, we're talking about what amounts to glances into a whole new universe for 99.999% of all people out there. Sure, many will shrug it off.

Others, however, may be intrigued, curious even. After all, this is evidence that "the Metaverse" is, surprisingly, alive. It is not suggested in AI-generated pictures. It really exists. And it looks better than all of Zuckerberg's propaganda. These people don't care what matters in the image and what doesn't. They go on an exploration trip all across the whole image and take in all the details.

Blind or visually-impaired people can't do this. But they may want to do it. And they've got the right to do it, just like sighted people. So they should be given just the same opportunity to do it. Remember that I can't assume that they know what anything in the image looks like unless there's a real-life counterpart that looks very much the same.

Whenever there's something in one of my images that doesn't exist in real life, I have to assume that nobody knows anything about it. So not only do I need an extensive visual description, but I often also need an extensive explanation of this one item.

Finally, there's one more thing that takes up a lot of room: text transcripts. The rule is that if there is text within the borders of an image, it must be transcribed. I rarely even see the exception "unless it doesn't matter within the context". And, again, it tends to happen that everything in one of my images matters within the context because the context is the very image itself.

What this rule doesn't cover at all is text that is unreadable in the image as it is shown. There is no exception for this kind of text, nor is it explicitly included in this rule. It isn't handled at all. It has never even been thought of. Hence, I must assume that the rule applies to this kind of text just as well.

Before you say that I can't transcribe text that I can't read: I actually can. I don't transcribe text by looking at it in the image. I transcribe text by looking at it in-world. And all of a sudden, those six pixels in a row that are ever so slightly more greenish than the surrounding white are two lines of text. That blot, four pixels wide, three pixels high, is actually a sign with a 1024x768-pixel texture and text that's perfectly legible. That tree trunk in front of that sign? In-world, I can look behind it.

If I can transcribe all this text, and nothing says I must not do so, I assume I must do so. And so I may end up with several dozen transcripts of more or less text which, including their respective contexts in the image description, take up more characters than fit into a Mastodon alt-text. If this is the case, then the text transcripts must go into the long description in the post rather than the short description in the alt-text.

This is not by user request. This is an accessibility rule that I follow.

Now you may say that I don't have to deliver such an enormous infodump at once on a silver platter, whether people want it or not. You may say that they could always ask if they want something more.

But seriously, this is about accessibility. And if people have to ask and then wait for assistance, it isn't accessible. They could just as well ask for the whole image description, and if they don't, I don't have ot write it. It wouldn't make much of a difference.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility

@Jeffrey D. Stark I don't know for certain what the majority want in general. And I don't know what they'd want in my very specific case.

I can only try and extrapolate what they might want from other Fediverse users' image descriptions and feedback on other Fediverse users' image descriptions, as little as there is.

The problem with this is that I don't post what everyone else posts. Not real-life photographs, not screenshots from social media etc., but renderings from very obscure 3-D virtual worlds. This means that there is next to nothing in my images that anyone is familiar with and that any blind or visually-impaired user has a rough idea what it looks like.

I've seen real-life photographs, sometimes literally focusing on one specific element in them with the whole background blurred out, that were described in over 800 characters. I've seen them be praised for their alt-texts. On the other hand, I've never seen a real-life photograph in the Fediverse be criticised for too much alt-text.

This, however, doesn't easily translate to virtual world renderings. Real-life photographs are much more familiar and much more likely to mostly contain things that people are more or less familiar with. And yet, people love it when they're described in 800 characters and more, all the way to replying with hashtags such as #AltTextAward or #AltTextAwards or #AltTextHallOfFame.

Logical conclusion: If there's more in the images that people aren't familiar with, I'll have to describe more than in these real-life photographs. And there is more in the images that people aren't familiar with.

Virtual world renderings are a largely unexplored edge-case. Only very few people in the Fediverse post these. I think only two describe them. And I'm the only one who really puts some thought into describing them instead of trying to get away with the bare minimum. This means that what I'm trying to do is a first. Nobody has done it before me. There's no prior experience with it.

Thus, I have to go with my own assumptions and conclusions based on a) observations on Mastodon and b) the differences in familiarity between real life and what I post about.

Three things are clear about my images.

First, if sighted people see it, they don't really know what it is, where it is etc.

Second, if non-sighted people come across the image, there is nothing in the image of which they know what it looks like due to having been told often enough what it looks like because they've never been told what anything in the image looks like. But they may want to know what it looks like. And it's their right to know what it looks like.

Third, this topic is such a small niche and so extremely obscure that if you don't know something, you can't just look it up on Wikipedia. You can't even Google it. Generally, the only source of information that could really help you with my pictures, that's me. I'm definitely the only way "to get the larger details and nuances".

And so there's much more in my images that needs to be described. And there's much more that needs to be explained, one of the reasons why I always describe my virtual world renderings twice.

This starts with the location, the place where an image was taken. There are cases in which it does matter where an image was taken. My virtual world renderings are such cases.

If a real-life location is shown in a photo, sighted people may recognise it because it's so famous. Otherwise and for non-sighted people, simple name-dropping is usually sufficient. There's hardly any place in real life that can't be sufficiently mentioned in under 50 characters.

I can't name-drop. It won't tell anyone anything because nobody would know the name I've dropped. If I want to tell people where an image is from, I'll first have to break it down and then explain it and explain the explanation and so forth. I can't tell anyone, sighted or not, where my images are from in under 1,000 characters. Not if I want them to understand it.

As for visual descriptions, the usual advice is to limit yourself to what's important within the context, describe only the one important element in detail and hint at everything else at most. But I don't always have that one important element. I may have about two dozen important elements. Or, more often, the post is about the whole image, the whole scenery, and everything in it is important just the same.

But even if something in the image is more important than something else, I still have to describe everything. I mean, we're talking about what amounts to glances into a whole new universe for 99.999% of all people out there. Sure, many will shrug it off.

Others, however, may be intrigued, curious even. After all, this is evidence that "the Metaverse" is, surprisingly, alive. It is not suggested in AI-generated pictures. It really exists. And it looks better than all of Zuckerberg's propaganda. These people don't care what matters in the image and what doesn't. They go on an exploration trip all across the whole image and take in all the details.

Blind or visually-impaired people can't do this. But they may want to do it. And they've got the right to do it, just like sighted people. So they should be given just the same opportunity to do it. Remember that I can't assume that they know what anything in the image looks like unless there's a real-life counterpart that looks very much the same.

Whenever there's something in one of my images that doesn't exist in real life, I have to assume that nobody knows anything about it. So not only do I need an extensive visual description, but I often also need an extensive explanation of this one item.

Finally, there's one more thing that takes up a lot of room: text transcripts. The rule is that if there is text within the borders of an image, it must be transcribed. I rarely even see the exception "unless it doesn't matter within the context". And, again, it tends to happen that everything in one of my images matters within the context because the context is the very image itself.

What this rule doesn't cover at all is text that is unreadable in the image as it is shown. There is no exception for this kind of text, nor is it explicitly included in this rule. It isn't handled at all. It has never even been thought of. Hence, I must assume that the rule applies to this kind of text just as well.

Before you say that I can't transcribe text that I can't read: I actually can. I don't transcribe text by looking at it in the image. I transcribe text by looking at it in-world. And all of a sudden, those six pixels in a row that are ever so slightly more greenish than the surrounding white are two lines of text. That blot, four pixels wide, three pixels high, is actually a sign with a 1024x768-pixel texture and text that's perfectly legible. That tree trunk in front of that sign? In-world, I can look behind it.

If I can transcribe all this text, and nothing says I must not do so, I assume I must do so. And so I may end up with several dozen transcripts of more or less text which, including their respective contexts in the image description, take up more characters than fit into a Mastodon alt-text. If this is the case, then the text transcripts must go into the long description in the post rather than the short description in the alt-text.

This is not by user request. This is an accessibility rule that I follow.

Now you may say that I don't have to deliver such an enormous infodump at once on a silver platter, whether people want it or not. You may say that they could always ask if they want something more.

But seriously, this is about accessibility. And if people have to ask and then wait for assistance, it isn't accessible. They could just as well ask for the whole image description, and if they don't, I don't have ot write it. It wouldn't make much of a difference.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility

@Jeffrey D. Stark I don't know for certain what the majority want in general. And I don't know what they'd want in my very specific case.

I can only try and extrapolate what they might want from other Fediverse users' image descriptions and feedback on other Fediverse users' image descriptions, as little as there is.

The problem with this is that I don't post what everyone else posts. Not real-life photographs, not screenshots from social media etc., but renderings from very obscure 3-D virtual worlds. This means that there is next to nothing in my images that anyone is familiar with and that any blind or visually-impaired user has a rough idea what it looks like.

I've seen real-life photographs, sometimes literally focusing on one specific element in them with the whole background blurred out, that were described in over 800 characters. I've seen them be praised for their alt-texts. On the other hand, I've never seen a real-life photograph in the Fediverse be criticised for too much alt-text.

This, however, doesn't easily translate to virtual world renderings. Real-life photographs are much more familiar and much more likely to mostly contain things that people are more or less familiar with. And yet, people love it when they're described in 800 characters and more, all the way to replying with hashtags such as #AltTextAward or #AltTextAwards or #AltTextHallOfFame.

Logical conclusion: If there's more in the images that people aren't familiar with, I'll have to describe more than in these real-life photographs. And there is more in the images that people aren't familiar with.

Virtual world renderings are a largely unexplored edge-case. Only very few people in the Fediverse post these. I think only two describe them. And I'm the only one who really puts some thought into describing them instead of trying to get away with the bare minimum. This means that what I'm trying to do is a first. Nobody has done it before me. There's no prior experience with it.

Thus, I have to go with my own assumptions and conclusions based on a) observations on Mastodon and b) the differences in familiarity between real life and what I post about.

Three things are clear about my images.

First, if sighted people see it, they don't really know what it is, where it is etc.

Second, if non-sighted people come across the image, there is nothing in the image of which they know what it looks like due to having been told often enough what it looks like because they've never been told what anything in the image looks like. But they may want to know what it looks like. And it's their right to know what it looks like.

Third, this topic is such a small niche and so extremely obscure that if you don't know something, you can't just look it up on Wikipedia. You can't even Google it. Generally, the only source of information that could really help you with my pictures, that's me. I'm definitely the only way "to get the larger details and nuances".

And so there's much more in my images that needs to be described. And there's much more that needs to be explained, one of the reasons why I always describe my virtual world renderings twice.

This starts with the location, the place where an image was taken. There are cases in which it does matter where an image was taken. My virtual world renderings are such cases.

If a real-life location is shown in a photo, sighted people may recognise it because it's so famous. Otherwise and for non-sighted people, simple name-dropping is usually sufficient. There's hardly any place in real life that can't be sufficiently mentioned in under 50 characters.

I can't name-drop. It won't tell anyone anything because nobody would know the name I've dropped. If I want to tell people where an image is from, I'll first have to break it down and then explain it and explain the explanation and so forth. I can't tell anyone, sighted or not, where my images are from in under 1,000 characters. Not if I want them to understand it.

As for visual descriptions, the usual advice is to limit yourself to what's important within the context, describe only the one important element in detail and hint at everything else at most. But I don't always have that one important element. I may have about two dozen important elements. Or, more often, the post is about the whole image, the whole scenery, and everything in it is important just the same.

But even if something in the image is more important than something else, I still have to describe everything. I mean, we're talking about what amounts to glances into a whole new universe for 99.999% of all people out there. Sure, many will shrug it off.

Others, however, may be intrigued, curious even. After all, this is evidence that "the Metaverse" is, surprisingly, alive. It is not suggested in AI-generated pictures. It really exists. And it looks better than all of Zuckerberg's propaganda. These people don't care what matters in the image and what doesn't. They go on an exploration trip all across the whole image and take in all the details.

Blind or visually-impaired people can't do this. But they may want to do it. And they've got the right to do it, just like sighted people. So they should be given just the same opportunity to do it. Remember that I can't assume that they know what anything in the image looks like unless there's a real-life counterpart that looks very much the same.

Whenever there's something in one of my images that doesn't exist in real life, I have to assume that nobody knows anything about it. So not only do I need an extensive visual description, but I often also need an extensive explanation of this one item.

Finally, there's one more thing that takes up a lot of room: text transcripts. The rule is that if there is text within the borders of an image, it must be transcribed. I rarely even see the exception "unless it doesn't matter within the context". And, again, it tends to happen that everything in one of my images matters within the context because the context is the very image itself.

What this rule doesn't cover at all is text that is unreadable in the image as it is shown. There is no exception for this kind of text, nor is it explicitly included in this rule. It isn't handled at all. It has never even been thought of. Hence, I must assume that the rule applies to this kind of text just as well.

Before you say that I can't transcribe text that I can't read: I actually can. I don't transcribe text by looking at it in the image. I transcribe text by looking at it in-world. And all of a sudden, those six pixels in a row that are ever so slightly more greenish than the surrounding white are two lines of text. That blot, four pixels wide, three pixels high, is actually a sign with a 1024x768-pixel texture and text that's perfectly legible. That tree trunk in front of that sign? In-world, I can look behind it.

If I can transcribe all this text, and nothing says I must not do so, I assume I must do so. And so I may end up with several dozen transcripts of more or less text which, including their respective contexts in the image description, take up more characters than fit into a Mastodon alt-text. If this is the case, then the text transcripts must go into the long description in the post rather than the short description in the alt-text.

This is not by user request. This is an accessibility rule that I follow.

Now you may say that I don't have to deliver such an enormous infodump at once on a silver platter, whether people want it or not. You may say that they could always ask if they want something more.

But seriously, this is about accessibility. And if people have to ask and then wait for assistance, it isn't accessible. They could just as well ask for the whole image description, and if they don't, I don't have ot write it. It wouldn't make much of a difference.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility

@Jeffrey D. Stark I don't know for certain what the majority want in general. And I don't know what they'd want in my very specific case.

I can only try and extrapolate what they might want from other Fediverse users' image descriptions and feedback on other Fediverse users' image descriptions, as little as there is.

The problem with this is that I don't post what everyone else posts. Not real-life photographs, not screenshots from social media etc., but renderings from very obscure 3-D virtual worlds. This means that there is next to nothing in my images that anyone is familiar with and that any blind or visually-impaired user has a rough idea what it looks like.

I've seen real-life photographs, sometimes literally focusing on one specific element in them with the whole background blurred out, that were described in over 800 characters. I've seen them be praised for their alt-texts. On the other hand, I've never seen a real-life photograph in the Fediverse be criticised for too much alt-text.

This, however, doesn't easily translate to virtual world renderings. Real-life photographs are much more familiar and much more likely to mostly contain things that people are more or less familiar with. And yet, people love it when they're described in 800 characters and more, all the way to replying with hashtags such as #AltTextAward or #AltTextAwards or #AltTextHallOfFame.

Logical conclusion: If there's more in the images that people aren't familiar with, I'll have to describe more than in these real-life photographs. And there is more in the images that people aren't familiar with.

Virtual world renderings are a largely unexplored edge-case. Only very few people in the Fediverse post these. I think only two describe them. And I'm the only one who really puts some thought into describing them instead of trying to get away with the bare minimum. This means that what I'm trying to do is a first. Nobody has done it before me. There's no prior experience with it.

Thus, I have to go with my own assumptions and conclusions based on a) observations on Mastodon and b) the differences in familiarity between real life and what I post about.

Three things are clear about my images.

First, if sighted people see it, they don't really know what it is, where it is etc.

Second, if non-sighted people come across the image, there is nothing in the image of which they know what it looks like due to having been told often enough what it looks like because they've never been told what anything in the image looks like. But they may want to know what it looks like. And it's their right to know what it looks like.

Third, this topic is such a small niche and so extremely obscure that if you don't know something, you can't just look it up on Wikipedia. You can't even Google it. Generally, the only source of information that could really help you with my pictures, that's me. I'm definitely the only way "to get the larger details and nuances".

And so there's much more in my images that needs to be described. And there's much more that needs to be explained, one of the reasons why I always describe my virtual world renderings twice.

This starts with the location, the place where an image was taken. There are cases in which it does matter where an image was taken. My virtual world renderings are such cases.

If a real-life location is shown in a photo, sighted people may recognise it because it's so famous. Otherwise and for non-sighted people, simple name-dropping is usually sufficient. There's hardly any place in real life that can't be sufficiently mentioned in under 50 characters.

I can't name-drop. It won't tell anyone anything because nobody would know the name I've dropped. If I want to tell people where an image is from, I'll first have to break it down and then explain it and explain the explanation and so forth. I can't tell anyone, sighted or not, where my images are from in under 1,000 characters. Not if I want them to understand it.

As for visual descriptions, the usual advice is to limit yourself to what's important within the context, describe only the one important element in detail and hint at everything else at most. But I don't always have that one important element. I may have about two dozen important elements. Or, more often, the post is about the whole image, the whole scenery, and everything in it is important just the same.

But even if something in the image is more important than something else, I still have to describe everything. I mean, we're talking about what amounts to glances into a whole new universe for 99.999% of all people out there. Sure, many will shrug it off.

Others, however, may be intrigued, curious even. After all, this is evidence that "the Metaverse" is, surprisingly, alive. It is not suggested in AI-generated pictures. It really exists. And it looks better than all of Zuckerberg's propaganda. These people don't care what matters in the image and what doesn't. They go on an exploration trip all across the whole image and take in all the details.

Blind or visually-impaired people can't do this. But they may want to do it. And they've got the right to do it, just like sighted people. So they should be given just the same opportunity to do it. Remember that I can't assume that they know what anything in the image looks like unless there's a real-life counterpart that looks very much the same.

Whenever there's something in one of my images that doesn't exist in real life, I have to assume that nobody knows anything about it. So not only do I need an extensive visual description, but I often also need an extensive explanation of this one item.

Finally, there's one more thing that takes up a lot of room: text transcripts. The rule is that if there is text within the borders of an image, it must be transcribed. I rarely even see the exception "unless it doesn't matter within the context". And, again, it tends to happen that everything in one of my images matters within the context because the context is the very image itself.

What this rule doesn't cover at all is text that is unreadable in the image as it is shown. There is no exception for this kind of text, nor is it explicitly included in this rule. It isn't handled at all. It has never even been thought of. Hence, I must assume that the rule applies to this kind of text just as well.

Before you say that I can't transcribe text that I can't read: I actually can. I don't transcribe text by looking at it in the image. I transcribe text by looking at it in-world. And all of a sudden, those six pixels in a row that are ever so slightly more greenish than the surrounding white are two lines of text. That blot, four pixels wide, three pixels high, is actually a sign with a 1024x768-pixel texture and text that's perfectly legible. That tree trunk in front of that sign? In-world, I can look behind it.

If I can transcribe all this text, and nothing says I must not do so, I assume I must do so. And so I may end up with several dozen transcripts of more or less text which, including their respective contexts in the image description, take up more characters than fit into a Mastodon alt-text. If this is the case, then the text transcripts must go into the long description in the post rather than the short description in the alt-text.

This is not by user request. This is an accessibility rule that I follow.

Now you may say that I don't have to deliver such an enormous infodump at once on a silver platter, whether people want it or not. You may say that they could always ask if they want something more.

But seriously, this is about accessibility. And if people have to ask and then wait for assistance, it isn't accessible. They could just as well ask for the whole image description, and if they don't, I don't have ot write it. It wouldn't make much of a difference.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility