I try to think about screen-reader users when discussing what alternative text should be added to an image – and maybe even more important – when should an image have empty alternative text – so alt attribute (sometimes also called “tag”) with nothing in it.
Rules for alternative text are simple – if image is not decorative, then do your best to describe it’s purpose and what is pictured in it with alt attribute or maybe some other part of page that is linked to image with ARIA.
But first step is then to decide if image really isn’t decorative. So let’s try to think about what is decoration and what is decorative. It is by no means easy to determine if image is decorative or not – sometimes images promote certain tones of the page or article, sometimes same images just break long texts and sometimes they are there to really add explanations to the text on the page with their visual form.
Different people think differently about decoration
I’ve had a discussion with my co-worker that is marketing and content specialist and we just couldn’t agree on what is a decoration and what not. Then we checked the WCAG and other reliable sources and found examples that supported both points of view. On the end we just agreed that we do not agree. No hard feelings. But I was still a bit restless so I decided to investigate more on the subject.
I’ve discovered that different people really think differently about what is decoration and what not. And I am not just thinking about people that must use screen-reader and others. There are screen-reader users that like to have decorative images described to them and there are screen-readers that dislike all the clutter (probably with search engine optimization in mind) of every image that breaks the long texts in the article.
I would like to hear about the eye-candy image that is there only to wake some nice feelings and set the mood of the text that is in the article. It makes my experience fuller.
one of screen-reader users, blind.
So there you have it – maybe we should actually have alternative texts on all images that are not obviously decorative – for example an arrow in a button. Google will definitely appreciate this. But I am still not convinced that all screen-reader users will.
I will have to do more research, but it seems like our experiences on the web seems to be divided into two groups here;
- users that like to concentrate on content and dislike alternative texts that steal their time and effort,
- users that like to get more details even if they are not totally relevant or if they only add to their imagination, not new information.
I hate when I have to listen to ear-candy alternative texts that are there only to satisfy search engine optimization. They steal my time that I would like to use on the subject but instead I must listen to this vocal decorations.
another side of the story – another blind screen-reader user.
The reality is, as always, in between – sometimes same persons also change their minds, especially if content is emotionally closer to them. It is also easy to skip to other images for a screen-reader user, so maybe this is not a binary question and is probably again proof that we should test with real users and not let our prejudices come in place before that.
I guess that it is better to describe all images that are used in the content, even if they only add to the mood or let’s call it audio-candy, and let the screen-reader users to decide if they want to listen to whole alternative text or not.
If author selected a stock image that is adding to the mood of the page – then it is maybe more inclusive to describe that image for screen-reader users as well. They can then choose if they want to listen to it or skip to another image or paragraph etc.
Sometimes we must be able to change our minds, and I think I will now be less rigid when evaluating the decorative nature of images.
