accessibility_fail | Accessibility questions

I have no fail to report (unless you count the existence of a building with stairs and no elevator, but you've seen that a million times), but I do have a question about how to not fail. Actually, I have a few questions, and they're specifically about accessibility for blind and VI internet users.

I understand that image descriptions are necessary, and that links should have descriptive text or clarifying title text. If anyone here personally uses these accessibility features, could you clarify some things for me?

1. Do entry titles and cut text also need to be descriptive like other links? If so, are entries without specific subjects inaccessible, if they're all called (no subject)?

2. What, precisely, constitutes a sufficiently descriptive link? I've been using noun phrases describing the destination, or the title of the page. Does that work?

3. It's my understanding that alt text should be short, and long image descriptions (of more than a sentence or so) should go in the text of the post. Is that correct?

4. What constitutes an adequate image description? It's my understanding that all text needs to be transcribed, and that if the image communicates some kind of point (like a graph), the description should make the same point in words. Is that correct? Additionally, do you prefer a description that just tells you what the fuss is about (like, "a picture of George Washington") or do you prefer to learn details about the image that aren't necessarily important to the point the author is making? (For instance, if a picture of George Washington is included in an article about him, do you want to know what he's wearing and what's in the background, or just that it's a picture of him?) And what about images that are purely decorative, like abstract art?

Thank you. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not blind, but I often have images switched off. Alt text should be short and descriptive; long text and captions should go underneath. What is described about the picture should be what is relevant to the page. If you have a picture of George Washington in an article about wigs, you might have a different description to the exact same picture in an article about slave-owning presidents.

Thank you! :)

For things like abstract art, I personally like it if shapes and colors can be described, since not all visual impairedness is the same and many of us will still know what you mean if you say 'a hunter green circle,' for instance.

Thanks! That helps.