Apparently, accessibility is not about trying as hard as you can.

Jupiter Rowland

Apparently, accessibility is not about trying as hard as you can. It has to be about trying exactly the right amount of hard without even knowing what the right amount is because the right amount is different for everyone.

For the record: I refuse to post any image without sufficient description. And "sufficient description" may mean two descriptions, a short (and still long) one in the alt-text, a massive one in the post. If I can't describe it properly, I don't post it. And I'm trying to up my game and add new tricks and new elements to my descriptions.

On the one hand, disabled people demand being involved in the topic of accessibility. Before you do something, consult with those whom you want to help. Don't just simply assume what they may need. Ask them. Discuss things with them. I've written an article on this topic.

On the other hand, apparently, asking too much will get you branded ableist, all the way to your home instance with over users being on the brink of a fediblock.

Here's a comment I've written on this poll thread by @Alina Leonova. I've directed it to a blind user whom I may have asked once too much.

Jupiter Rowland wrote the following post Fri, 06 Dec 2024 15:59:44 +0100

@Robert Kingett Honest question from an alt-text and image description perfectionist to a blind user: When is it actually accessible enough that whoever posts an image doesn't have to fear repercussions?

Okay, there has to be an alt-text. It has to actually describe the image. So much is clear to me.

And I guess that while at least some blind people in the Fediverse treasure whimsy higher than accuracy, others may want alt-text to be accurate.

But it looks to me like there is a rather narrow margin between alt-text with not enough details and alt-text that's too long and/or too detailed. This isn't communicated anywhere. It's unclear, too, whether that margin is always the same, or whether it shifts with the content of the image, the context and someone's individual idea of who the audience of an image post is.

And seriously, there are images that simply cannot be described in a way that's perfectly ideal and useful for absolutely everyone out there. I've posted such images in the past, and my image descriptions must have broken all length records in the Fediverse. But I think not everyone is happy about having to read through such monsters.

CC: @Stefan Bohacek @Olivier Mehani @Alina Leonova

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

Here is his reply in which he claims I'm an ableist who actually doesn't want to describe images. This is far from the truth.

Robert Kingett wrote the following post Fri, 06 Dec 2024 20:47:46 +0100

You really don't think I remember you do you? You ask this question every single time in an attempt to badger users like me into getting away with *not* providing alt text because you wanna be ableist but try to pass it off as perfectionist. You will *never* please everybody, so to even try and to even is patronizing and ableist all by itself. I consider you to be nothing more than a troll. Look dude, if you don't wanna provide alt text then don't fucking provide it, but don't insult my intelligence with this obvious C lion tactic of I'm a perfectionist. I should have blocked you the first 900 times you asked this fucking obtuse/C lioning/ ableist / patronizing question. If you don't wanna provide alt text, just don't do it and never ask me this question again. #AltText @jupiter_rowland

Here is my reply.

Jupiter Rowland wrote the following post Fri, 06 Dec 2024 21:37:27 +0100

@Robert Kingett

I should have blocked you the first 900 times you asked this fucking obtuse/C lioning/ ableist / patronizing question. If you don't wanna provide alt text, just don't do it and never ask me this question again.

If I didn't care for accessibility, if I didn't want to describe my images, why would I want to satisfy everyone, all the way to random strangers who stumble upon my posts in some federated timeline? I shouldn't even want to satisfy anyone!

Why would I spend literal days, morning to evening, describing one image in all details? Twice per image?

Why would I refuse to even take pictures, let alone post them, if they'll be too difficult to describe in a way that I consider sufficient?

Why would I pick up any advice on how to describe certain things, like people or colours, and consider any of my image descriptions that don't have this incorporated hopelessly outdated?

Why would I transcribe text that's too small for sighted people to read, just because all text in an image has to be described? Why would I feel bad about text that I couldn't transcribe and then try to find a source for that piece of text? And yes, I do.

Why would I be literally the only one in the entire Fediverse who tries to tell people that and why explanations don't go into the alt-text because people with certain disabilities can't access alt-text, and any information that's only available in alt-text is lost to them?

And why would I warn sensitive people about eyes or food that's in the image on a microscopic sub-pixel level if I didn't care? And yes, I actually did that. In my post with my second-longest image description.

Just because I don't just simply shut up and describe my images exactly on point like you personally want them described, doesn't justify insulting me as an ableist.

CC: @Alina Leonova

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

In the meantime, he wrote and sent this post in which he called for a fediblock of either my channel or the entirety of hub.netzgemeinde.eu, the biggest Hubzilla instance.

Robert Kingett wrote the following post Fri, 06 Dec 2024 21:49:48 +0100

Link at end. I'm unsure if @jupiter_rowland is on his own instance, but #Fediblock for concerned trolling and ableist behavior by being patronizing to disabled people about alt text. I can't find others on his instance, but every, single time, the person posts the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and expects disabled people to tell this person because you can't describe every thing in an image you don't have to do alt text. Or maybe my temper is just short today, but here's the question. This isn't genuine curiocity because he asks the, same, question, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. No answer is to his satisfaction. Nobdoy waste your time with this obnoxious troll. If it turns out I am lashing out of anger and have misjudged, will delete the post but https://hub.netzgemeinde.eu/item/4cd5e3e2-b43f-4ba3-8195-1c7590989940

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #QuotePost #QuoteBoost #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #A11y #Accessibility #Ableist #Ableism #FediblockMeta

Darrell Hilliker 👨‍🦯♾️📡

@jupiter_rowland I think #accessibility is just a little different for each person and each situation. I think you're fine if you're truly doing the work with the right intention and an attitude of inclusion. If that's what you're doing then keep up the great work.

Morgan ⚧️

@jupiter_rowland if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually want to provide perfect alt text, Robert was still right when he said you shouldn't bother trying. Because everyone has different wants and needs. You can't get alt text that will satisfy everyone.
Maybe stop viewing it as "how do I get every disabled person to like me?" and instead consider "what information would I want about this image if I were hearing it through a screen reader?"

Morgan ⚧️

@jupiter_rowland disabled people, with occasional misunderstandings, usually can tell if your goal is genuine accessibility or just to get us to give you praise or stop asking for accommodations. I'm not sure in this case, but clearly Robert interpreted you as the latter, probably because you keep asking over and over again. If it's actually accessibility that you want, harassing blind people is not the way to get it.

Jupiter Rowland

@Darrell Hilliker

‍🦯♾️

I think that's part of the issue, even if it's unavoidable: There's no one way to please everyone. And the more niche and special your content is, the harder it becomes to please as many disabled people as possible.

There's a saying: "Nothing about us without us." Don't assume what disabled people may need. Ask them. Talk to them. Listen to them.

But I guess the attitude in the Fediverse is that everything is said, everything is defined, everything is set in stone, and it'll work in 100% of all cases. No need to talk about it. You're expected to know it. Just do it.

I mean, I could just carry on assuming, based on what I've read here and there, even if that's technically the wrong thing. I know that there are at least some people who enjoy what I do, for whom it may be helpful.

I could just go on doing that and improving that, for any definition of improving. I could go on until enough people complain to me that I'm doing it completely wrong, and that staggering level of detail is bad for magnitudes more people than it helps. But this is unlikely to happen, seeing as how little feedback I receive.

I mean, at the end of the day, I can't really know whom I describe my images for. Do blind or visually impaired users even come across my image posts, seeing as they come from two different channels than this one now? Do those come across my image posts who demand sanctions for everyone who doesn't describe their images sufficiently? Are my extensive image descriptions and explanations useful for anyone?

Still, I go on putting huge efforts into describing them for the random stranger who stumbles upon one of them on some federated timeline, regardless of whether they're visually-impaired, blessed with a terribly slow Internet connection or a fully sighted alt-text enforcer.

And I will most likely go on increasing my efforts where I can. I'm currently polishing my way of describing persons or rather avatars. After all, I can see the alt-text quality requirements in the Fediverse be constantly raised, too. I need to stay ahead of them.

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

Jupiter Rowland

@Morgan ⚧️ I've spent two full days describing one image.

I feel bad when I can't describe something in an image the way I'd like to see myself describe it.

I keep coming across scenes that I think might make for nice pictures. But then I start trying to describe them in my head. And when I discover something that I can't properly describe, I don't even take the picture. I couldn't post it anyway without a description that's up to my standards.

I refuse to post images with realistic-looking buildings in them due to how complex they are to describe. After all, I'd have to first research architectural terminology and then explain it to my readers in the long image description.

A bit over a year ago, while working on an image description which, the next day (!), would end at over 38,000 characters, I realised that I had to describe three pictures of stellar nebulae. I didn't even really know how. I was about to abandon the whole image-posting project due to this. What I've eventually written still feels like a sub-par kludge, not to mention outdated a few times over.

I've read about people going back and alt-texting their entire backlog of image posts. I've wondered a few times if it is or should be recommended to go back and edit and improve your old image descriptions after you've learned something new in terms of describing images.

What do you think, is this genuine or not?

And seriously, I don't even know whom exactly I'm doing all this for because I almost never get any feedback in any form. I do it for whoever comes across one of my image posts. Since my new channel for original images (which I do these monstrous descriptions for) has only got nine followers, and my channel for Fediverse memes (which at least tend to come with extensive explanations) has only seven, it has to be a very rare occurrence that someone who really needs an image description finds one of my image posts.

But I guess the ultimate solution is to forget about "Nothing About Us Without Us" and do what I think is right until too many people come complaining. Which will probably amount to indefinitely.

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

Morgan ⚧️

@jupiter_rowland you do seem genuine right now, and if that's the case I'd say you're overthinking this a lot. If no one gives you feedback on your alt text, it's probably because your alt text is fine. And unless the specific focus of your post is architecture, I don't think anyone really expects you to give a detailed description of all the buildings. "A city skyline" or "a few small houses" are probably enough unless you're trying to say something specific about them, and then you'll know.

Jupiter Rowland

@Morgan ⚧️ It's probably for the best to do what I do anyway unless enough people come straight to me and complain about what I've done.

It may not be the best in terms of living accessibility, but it's the best for everyone's peace of mind, seeing as hardly anyone will see my image posts anyway.

Morgan ⚧️

@jupiter_rowland yes, exactly. I think there's a common standard of "what's all the text in the image and a basic description of the picture(s)". And personally I consider a basic description of the pictures to be the things I would hope someone to know.
Usually, I don't describe the colors of shoes on a stranger in a crowd. But I would mention the colors of a closeup of pride shoes.
(First image CW for USpol and genocide. Wish I could only mark that one )

But past that, you can relax.

Jupiter Rowland

@Morgan ⚧️ Well, what I meant with "do what I do anyway" is not what everyone else does.

My Fediverse meme posts have fairly standard image descriptions. What may make them long and complex are the explanations. They matter in this context because everyone else would explain meme images in the alt-text, but explanations don't belong into alt-text. And meme posts about Fediverse things do need a lot of explanation if they go beyond Mastodon, and mine tend to go way beyond Mastodon.

(Content warning: eye contact) My first attempt at a new meme-posting format on a new, specialised channel was made under the assumption that Mastodon users prefer explanations given to them on a silver platter, right in the post itself which also contains the image. I was told a while ago that external links are bad and inconvenient and probably not accessible, and it's better to explain everything myself.

I always have to explain the meme template, and especially in this case, I also had to explain the topic. So I ended up with nine explanations on four or five levels with some 25,000 characters altogether, more than half of which went into the two explanations for the topic.

I couldn't imagine that this was actually what people wanted, seeing as it was generally Mastodon users who seemed to want me to explain everything, but at the same time, it's Mastodon users who complain the most loudly about long posts. And so I ran a poll on how people actually wanted meme posts to be explained. At least of the few who voted, nobody wanted explanations in the post if they end up tens of thousands of characters long.

Ever since, I've delegated the meme template explanations to KnowYourMeme which I link to.

As for the topic, (content warning: eye contact, guns) sometimes it needs no explanation. Sometimes ](content warning: eye contact, food) it can entirely be covered by links. Sometimes (content warning: eye contact) I only need a short explanation.

But in cases like (content warning: eye contact, swearing) this or (content warning: eye contact, anger, crying, Japanese swearing) this, I have to write extensive explanations, even if I can link to a whole lot of external information sources.

For my original images, renderings from very obscure 3-D virtual worlds, I do much more. I always write two image descriptions for each image.

One goes into the alt-text, and it's as long as I can make it within the 1500-character limit imposed by Mastodon, Misskey and their forks. And that's the short description that's mostly only there to satisfy the "every image must have alt-text, no matter what" fundamentalists.

There's also a long description in the post itself which is much, much more detailed. It also contains all necessary explanations which I have to write myself because I can't really rely on external links. And if there's any text anywhere within the borders of the image, legible or not, verbatim transcripts of all these bits of text go into the long description.

My most recent example, already on my new image-posting channel, but from four months ago, is (content warning: eye contact) this. I've taken care to have as little scenery or surrounding or anything else in the pictures as possible, and still, I ended up with over 20,000 characters of image description. Here I explain why portraits are easier to describe.

A few examples with scenery, in chronological order, and much longer descriptions, and I consider them all outdated regardless: (content warning: eye contact, food) this, (content warning: eye contact) this and (content warning: eye contact) this.

The first two links also demonstrate how I used to describe pictures within a picture, even on three levels in the case of the second link. But if I had carried on doing this the same way for the image behind the third link, I would have had to describe over a hundred images in various locations on at least four levels. Besides, I would have described details that not only aren't visible in the image, but that aren't visible either in the place shown in the image. Also, this might have revealed eye contact or another trigger of sorts.

So I decided against describing things that cannot be seen in the shown place. This was the first time that I actually imposed a limitation on myself.

I could post many, many, many more scenery pictures, maybe even with actual scenery and with many more details. But it would always take me days to describe one of them. The last two image posts I've linked to required two days to write descriptions.

For example, I've been to a New Orleans-themed place a month ago. It would have made for a gorgeous picture report. But it would have taken me at least a week and a half to only describe the four images that Mastodon would let through. In fact, Mastodon would have rejected the post anyway because, with the massive image descriptions, it would have exceeded 100,000 characters by far.

If you're wondering why my descriptions of virtual world images have to be so long and so detailed, I've written an article about that.

#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta