Decorative images (no alt text) in wysiwyg
planned
Dale Trexel
Some advanced content managers are asking for the ability to place "decorative" images with 'alt=""' as recommended by https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decorative/ The wysiwyg media tool currently requires alt text. Rather than removing the requirement (which risks users leaving out alt text when it's needed), it would be helpful to provide an option to declare an image as "decorative" for users who understand the implications.
There is discussion in the Drupal community about this challenge, especially with the use of the Media Library, where reuse of images can result in different uses of the same image, some decorative and some not. https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2934405 Because of the reuse issue, the best place to handle the "decorative" state would be at the point of insertion of an image into the page, which for the Folwell wysiwyg would be the media button.
Control options focus on either an explicit checkbox declaring an image "decorative" that would override any alt text field settings, or a special code such as "<none>" or "<decorative>" in the alt text field that would be automatically replaced with "". Either could work here. A new field would allow for extra help text explaining the implications, whereas a special code could be kept as "special knowledge" shared with only trusted content managers.
Note that for the Folwell wysiwyg implementation, the optional caption field can render the image "decorative" and the alt text redundant as described in "Example 3: Image with adjacent text alternative" https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decorative/#example-3-image-with-adjacent-text-alternative The concept of "decorative" goes beyond "eye-candy" to include "already-described" and reduces redundancy for screen readers.
Laura Carlson
If this is added, I suggest adding some kind of author warning is added as to the seriousness and repercussions of using it.
Null alt text is a hangover from the spacer gif era. Decorative (eye-candy). alt="" is too often used by lazy authors not to provide a text alternative. The act of an abled content author making the determination of what constitutes decorative or not removes agency from the person utilizing assistive technology. Providing text alternatives for decorative images can be a benefit, in some cases, for people who are blind or have low vision, especially for those who have lost their sight later in life. It would allow them to picture the image in their minds. It should be a user who can decide if it is meaningless or not.
Purely decorative [1] images are visual enhancements, decorations or embellishments that provide no function or information beyond aesthetics to users who can view the images. They are meaningless in themselves and do not provide a page any content [2]. Mark up purely decorative images so they can be ignored by assistive technology with a null alt attribute ( alt="" ). If the image isn't providing the user any informative content or enhancing understanding of the content, then it is appropriate for the short text alternative to be empty.
However, if an image has a purpose, then a user should be aware that it is there and what its intended purpose is.
A null alt attribute will:
Be completely ignored by assistive technologies.
Prevent a person who is blind from knowing about, discussing, and sharing the image.
So, an author should seriously consider if an image is purely decorative. If it isn't, they should try to concisely explain what the image is in the context of the document's purpose without overly duplicating the text in which the image is embedded.
Whenever a null alt attribute is used the author is deciding that informing a person who is blind that the image on the page isn't important or worthwhile for them to know about.
The fact an image is there is completely hidden from them.
Ultimately, it is about treating people with visual disabilities as visitors who access content differently, but equally.
Treat them fairly and on an even footing: "deciding" that they likely don't want to know that an image is on the page is a serious decision to make.
Let's try to do our best to treat people with visual disabilities with that same kind of respect - afford them a textual glance of the image that all sighted users will make when a page first loads (and avoid going into too much detail, because few sighted users are going to study the image thoroughly).
As Eric Bailey wrote, "Your Image Is Probably Not Decorative" [3].
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-pure-decoration
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-content
[3] https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2021/06/img-alt-attribute-alternate-description-decorative/
Thank you.
Kind Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson
Information Technology Systems and Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, MN U.S.A. 55812-3009
http://www.d.umn.edu/itss/training/online/webdesign/
W3C Invited Expert
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/ag/participants
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Dimitri Tadege
planned
Sara Froehlich
Hi Dale, Thank you for submitting this suggestion. As I indicated to you and others on Slack, this conversation about how to best add decorative images that follow WC3 best practices has been taking place in many different places throughout the U.
The Disability Resource Center (DRC) has been consulted on this issue and it was discussed at the June Drupal Advisory Board. It was decided that OIT would look at how to best address the need to best enter "" for alt text on images. A patch (https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/3056888) was suggested that they are going to look at for potential implementation.
If that doesn't fully address all of the issues presented, then we will look for other ways to address the accessibility issue/s through Folwell.
Sara Froehlich
under review