cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/54415745
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
222 points (94.8% liked)
Progressive Politics
5114 readers
787 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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)
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:
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.
Not in the slightest: the guideline falls under Principle 1 – Perceivable
as Guideline 1.1 – Text Alternatives
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
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.
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.
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.