@
Georgiana Brummell Well, when I describe my images, I have to assume four things.
One, nobody in the Fediverse is even remotely familiar with anything in my images. So what I can't assume is that anyone knows anything about my images anyway, and that it needs no description.
Two, someone somewhere out there might stumble upon my virtual world image posts and end up totally excited because they're proof that the so-called metaverse is, in fact, not dead. And as excited they are, they're also curious about these virtual worlds. Even if they're blind. This means that even if my images focus on something specific, they're just as curious about the whole surroundings.
Three, blind and visually-impaired people want to have the exact same chances at experiencing images as fully sighted people. Now, when someone fully sighted stumbles upon one of my virtual world images for the first time, do you really think they only look at what I say is important in the image? Of course not. Instead, they go on a discovery journey through a whole new and completely unknown universe. They take in all the big and small details in the image, whether these details matter in the context of the post or not.
Well, and I have to assume that blind or visually-impaired people want to have a chance to do the exact same thing. But in order for them to be able to do that, I have to help them by describing all the big and small things.
Four, when I mention something in my images, and someone doesn't know what it looks like, and they can't see it, they want to know what it looks like. Not describing them would be lazy, selfish and ableist. And having blind or visually-impaired users ask me about details is just as ableist. They don't want to have to ask. They want to be told right away. I mean, otherwise I wouldn't have to describe my images at all. If someone wants to know what they show, they can ask, right?
And so I have to describe my images at an extremely high level of detail.
In addition, I have to explain my images so that people understand the image description. I'm currently working on a series of virtual fashion portraits, so-to-speak, so they need tremendously detailed descriptions of the avatar. But nobody will understand the descriptions if I don't explain everything from the ground up.
So right now, the long image description starts with some 12,000 characters of explanations in the preamble before any visuals are described. It'd be even more if I had to explain the location where I've taken the images. But I hope I can safely assume that nobody wants to know where the images were taken if the entire background is a neutral, featureless white.
I guess things would be much easier if discussion groups had always been an integral part of the whole Fediverse, including Mastodon, and not just a fringe phenomenon that nobody knows about.
There could be a group about accessibility in the Fediverse, populated by online accessibility experts, by actually blind or visually-impaired people, by people who are both like Veronica with Four Eyes and by Fediverse users who want to get their image descriptions as right as possible. They could all discuss things not only with the thread starters, but with one another.
I could go there and ask the questions I have, and I actually have many questions. And people wouldn't just answer me independently from one another. They would see everyone else's answers and comment on these. They would start discussing the topics amongst one another from different points of view to find the best solution, the best answer.
But I can't do that because there are no such discussion groups, and everyone is in places that neither have nor support groups in the first place.
The best I can do is ask a question and then mass-mention not only Guppe groups on accessibility, but also a bunch of Fediverse users of whom I know that they are blind or visually-impaired. Unfortunately, Veronica with Four Eyes, a proponent of describing all images twice like I do, is not even active in the Fediverse, if she's there at all.
I've done that last year when I needed to know if I have to describe what the herringbone fabric pattern looks like or what a full brogue shoe looks like in general and what a specific full brogue shoe looks like in particular, or whether I can assume that to be known. I think I got three independent replies although, fortunately, everyone mentioned each other. They said that I don't have to describe them, and one or two said that I can safely assume that people know what I mean if I just drop the names.
Right now I'm wondering if I can safely assume that everyone knows what the three lions in the Royal Arms of England look like, or whether they need their own detail description. I have to deal with a number of sports jackets with the three lions on the buttons, that's why. And in fact, the buttons are so small in the images that even sighted people can't see the three lions on them.
Also, I'm wondering if everyone is familiar with the term "shank button", or whether that requires an explanation, too.
#
Long #
LongPost #
CWLong #
CWLongPost #
FediMeta #
FediverseMeta #
CWFediMeta #
CWFediverseMeta #
AltText #
AltTextMeta #
CWAltTextMeta #
ImageDescription #
ImageDescriptions #
ImageDescriptionMeta