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.