310
when somebody asks me why my GNU+Linux looks so cute
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Alt text:
a person looking like a combination of Lain (from Serial Experiments Lain) and Misato (from Neon Genesis Evangelion) holding an energy drink, looking drunk
"these are the perks of using free software, shinji"
Exactly. It should describe what you're looking at. For example, her short dark spiky hair or the fact that she's wearing fishnet gloves and stockings.
I think you're misunderstanding them.
If you think the joke is about her appearance then yes the exact appearance matters (which would be valid, if this would be about unixsocks). The characters are what's important to me here instead.
Lain is a computer enthusiast, who is kind of a shut in (at first). The above line is out of character for her but not Misato. If you don't know these people then you wouldn't know this, even if you have perfect vision.
Alt text should describe what you're communicating, not necessarily every detail.
Eh, maybe? Most of the transcriptions I've seen, particularly the ones from the explicitly accessibility-focused now-defunct Transcribers of Reddit (the founder of which I was in close communication with, as a co-mod of an unrelated subreddit) try to simply describe what you're seeing. In enough detail that those in the know might be able to make the same conclusions as a sighted person, but without providing details that aren't self-evident from the original source. So like, if it was a picture of a known character, it might say that, but if it just vaguely looks like an amalgamation of a couple of fictional characters, you'd be unlikely to see that specified, especially if they're relatively obscure and less likely to be familiar to most of the audience.
Then that part of the audience won't get the post, which is fine. This is not a vision/ability issue.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm glad they at least gave it a shot, though! But I wish more people were willing to hear suggestions on how they could be better, more accurate, more helpful to the people it's intended to help, etc, rather than just insisting they're correct (when they're objectively not.) I see that behavior a lot with things like image transcription/description and content warnings and I just don't understand it.
I'm really confused about this case because based on the now-deleted comment, they did listen to the feedback and improve it, but then they seem to have changed their mind and gone back on their improvement. Admittedly, adding the new bit in brackets is an improvement over the original, but I think it's a step down from if it had been an actual description of what's visible in the image.
I changed it because very few people care about them right now, so when I got feedback I just changed it. I still think the the way it is right now makes more sense. Potentially I'm wrong, but I haven't yet seen a convincing argument.
totally fair, you're free to be as detailed with your own alt text as you like, i just dont see the value in playing editor for someone who already went above and beyond.
It's because I value accessibility and I'm hoping it can be done better in the future. A mediocre transcription is certainly much better than none at all, but why not strive to do it better?
why not lead with a better suggestion instead of criticism?
They did, though. You even replied to their comment that included better suggestions.
the first comment was actually just saying that the included text was not helpful, though I understand your confusion.