I manually checked the last 184 public posts with media attachments on climatejustice.social (local timeline with "media only" option) and found that 2 out of 3 posts (120/184) have media descriptions that I deem okay or good.

PaulaToThePeople

You can't really compare that with any findings by a bot, because:
1. I not only checked for the existence, but also the quality of the captions (and I was the only judge)
2. I only checked public posts and threads, but e.g. not answers to public posts by someone else (these don't end up in the local timeline)
3. I probably made a handful of mistakes

How did I do it? I used filters. I assigned one of two filters to each post. One filter for sufficient media descriptions, one for insufficient or no media descriptions.
And then I checked on the filters page how many posts have ended up in each filter.
Its very likely that I sometimes clicked the wrong filter.

PS: Also I didn't check whether all the info that can be seen or heard in the media is already described in the post itself.
And I didn't check if a caption was later added or edited.

Stefan Bohacek

@PaulaToThePeople Nice!

I've been thinking about doing this ever since I wrote https://stefanbohacek.com/blog/alttexthealthcheck-image-accessibility-report-1/.

PaulaToThePeople

@stefan Oh you're also behind that bot?
You really do a lot for the Fediverse I have to say! Thanks

Stefan Bohacek

@PaulaToThePeople Oh no, that would be @[email protected]!

We get confused for each other all the time.

PaulaToThePeople

@[email protected] @[email protected] Oh oops. But still.

Stefan Bohacek

@PaulaToThePeople @[email protected] Ha, thank you, just trying to do my part!