hey, question about image descriptions since folks are talking about them a lot today -
occasionally we'll post an image that is totally described in the text. is it better to leave the image description blank, fill it in with a "described in text", or just duplicate the description?
@starfall that is a good question!
I feel like "described in text" might be the way to go? or duplicating the description. idk, though, so ... boosting your question
@starfall i thin described with text because some people use readers
@starfall i’ve been duplicating since i suspect screen readers and other such technology rely on an HTML tag that is unique to the image (alt), but haven’t actually validated that assumption. curious what others are doing / prefer
@starfall I'd probably try to find some way to put it that feels more natural than "described in text"; perhaps say, for instance, "the (thing) mentioned in the text, a (brief description)" or something like that
@starfall mmmm i dont usually write in my descriptions what i write on the toot text, i.e toot says: this is a draw this un your style hosted by X and the image description i write "this is a drawing of a girl with pink hair wearing a fluffy white sweater sitting by a fireplace." I think if you write in the image description "this is a dtiys by x" is kind of mean, it doesnt describe what was drawn
@starfall i'd go with one of the last two
Plural Café is a community for plural systems and plural-friendly singlets alike, that hopes to foster a safe place for finding and interacting with other systems in the Mastodon fediverse.
If you are interested in signing up: please put whether you are a plural system or singlet in the "Why do you want to join" box. This is purely to ward off spam bots. If this is not answered, your request to join the instance will be rejected.