238
Voting is Easier than Revolution (infosec.pub)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/54415745

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Because that's not a solution: the post remains inaccessible. Unless you edit the post, demanding they fix it is the only solution.

I see stating the obvious struck a nerve for the downvoters, so let me dumb it down for the unfortunate ilk unable to grasp the obvious: y'all full of shit. You think someone scrolling through posts the same as you is going to notice a text alternative hidden away in some comment on some other page? You expect them to open every post unlike you for something that likely won't even be there? That's not equivalent in the slightest. Shit's daft as fuck: keep dreaming.

Now examine critically the substance of the other commenter's actions. While the comment is effective at drawing upvotes, is it actually effective at the main outcome of doing anything meaningful for accessibility as they purport? No, the comment doesn't appear to anyone scrolling through posts. Tellingly, the community is simply rewarding self-indulgent ploys to gain upvotes that do nothing for accessibility while condemning meaningful answers to actually solve it. That's quite damning.

It indicates a toxic community that cares more about indulging community narcissism than acting on their purpose directly within their capacity right here to address an issue in their control. A real progressive would care enough about equal access to look up & determine the truth on the matter, so they can pursue and promote real answers instead of empty gestures that don't meaningfully address inaccessible content. The placebo they pretend works stops them from developing real cures.

In sum, some lemmy communities in particular are toxic & hostile to web accessibility in ways we don't find in bluesky and other parts of the fediverse such as mastodon where web accessibility is common practice.

Back to the point, here's an introduction to web accessibility that you seem to sorely need. You can also read the technical guideline while you're at it. However, your nonsolution is an unhelpful illusion that diverts people from pursuing credible solutions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    Long Reply

    https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/general/G92

    This is among one of many techniques presented at the WCAG site you linked. You putting text in a top level comment would seem to me to satisfy this, at least in intent. If the image was removed, then a long description present on the page, even in a top level comment, would appropriately describe what was there. It also alleviates the searchability issue you highlighted. It also doesn't meet qualify under any failure criteria. Might be still only partially WCAG compliant but it would make it more accessible for users who need it.

    You're right, I'm not an accessibility expert, only taken basic AODA training in Ontario. Even then, the training said to offer and make accomodations to the best extent possible. I do put transcripts on my text heavy image posts because the version of my Lemmy app I used at the time hadn't let me put alt text. Most of my inline images within the last year have the alt property filled. (example)

    Unless you edit the post, demanding they fix it is the only solution.

    Why is that the only solution to be more inclusive? That's not helping anyone. WCAG specifically advises against requiring it to be done using their specifically defined techniques only, just that the outcome is an appropriately accessible piece for people who need it. Try this if you want to implore to edit it or do it in the future:

    To help with WCAG accessibility, OP please put a transcript on this image! I've made one for you... [Transcript].

    It took me less than two minutes to put up the transcript in my previous reply.

    addendum: It does mention to be a programmatically determinable non-text alternative, it must be from author-supplied data that links to it, to specifically be conformant to this standard. You can still put in the minimal effort to take the author's data and link it for the people who can't so that users with assisstive technologies can easily find it on the same page when they go looking. Like I said, complain and be part of the solution to make things more accessible for people who need it. I hadn't claimed that adding one would magically make it fully WCAG 2.2 complaint, only in that direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    This is among one of many techniques presented at the WCAG site you linked. You putting text in a top level comment would seem to me to satisfy this, at least in intent.

    Not in the slightest: the guideline falls under Principle 1 – Perceivable

    Information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive.

    as Guideline 1.1 – Text Alternatives

    Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

    The sight-impaired user is unable to perceive the text content hidden in the image at the post listing level that the sighted user can perceive. Your suggested text alternative is simply not there to display at the post listing level. Your suggested execution of the technique fails its test

    1. Remove, hide, or mask the non-text content
    2. Display the long description
    3. Check that the long description conveys the same information conveyed by the non-text content.

    since we can't display a description absent from the page. Your nonsolution misapplies the technique & is not a credible text alternative.

    Imagine opening every post to seek among an unsorted mass of comments a comment we can't seriously expect to exist providing a text alternative not written by the author & of questionable integrity: the user has no incentive to take that additional effort for a post that already violates web accessibility. They may not even be aware a post needs a text alternative. That is not equivalent to the experience of a user who can read the image.

    The best solution is not to use any web accessibility technique: actual text doesn't need it. Sharing it as an image was gratuitous & unnecessary. The post could have been proper text with the same bolding & line breaks.

    to offer and make accomodations to the best extent possible

    which your nonsolution here definitely is not: the post remains inaccessible. That is not due to a limitation of possibility: it's due to a failure of will or execution. As originally stated, posting proper text or setting alt text is possible.

    A separate comment only gives the commenter an unfounded sense of accomplishment, when they're only enabling the posters to continue violating web accessibility without any pressure to correct themselves. Structurally prolonging dysfunction that way is the opposite of helpful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Ok. Sure, bud. I've been making my posts accessible because other people have shown me the work of putting transcripts, sometimes even if not OP.

    If you think that simply telling people what to do and not providing an accessible alternative for people is better according to the WAI sources you shared, do things your way and don't let me stop you, then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent