Review C items: Short description for <alt>

[Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>]

Lots of strong feelings about the shortdesc for <alt>. Below is the discussion from DITAweb:

Annotation	Reviewer	Status	Type	Date	Topic version
In the <shortdesc>: Systems can display the alternate text when the image cannot be rendered, when a user mouses over an image, or the image is viewed by an assistive reader.	sdoherty	new	comment	26/11/2021 16:37:53
I don't know if we want to be that specific. Robert, your thoughts?	keberlein	new	comment	26/11/2021 18:07:37
+1Â I think you can leave the first sentence, but use Stan's sentence to replace the 2nd one in the original.	shudson	new	comment	29/11/2021 16:54:47
Or perhaps Stan's sentence can be used in either the Rendering expectations or Processing expectations section?	shudson	new	comment	29/11/2021 16:58:27
I'm kind of on the fence. We are never exhaustive when listing what an application *can* do with an element, and attempts to do so tend to look proscriptive, disallowing other options. In reality, for HTML, the alternate text and hover text are very different things -- alt text is explicitly to use when the image cannot be rendered, while the hover text is technically a "title". With DITA we don't have a title, so I know the alt text often gets used as both, but I believe some browsers and tools have actually moved away from having alt text appear as hover help.	randerson	new	comment	29/11/2021 21:57:38
I think the use by an assistive reader is an important thing to highlight, even if the hover part is left out. It is also important because Google prioritizes pages with accessibility features such as <alt> text.Â	dstevens	new	comment	30/11/2021 19:25:10
Most likely this topic needs a Usage Information section that explains that its dual purpose. Possibly something along the lines of "This element serves two main purposes. First, it provides a text alternative if rendering fails. Second, it can be used by accessiblity tools such as screen readers to provide descriptive text of the image." Possibly also include an example that shows appropriate decriptive text? I've never had to actually make anything accessible so I don't have a good example.	zlawson	updated	comment	5/12/2021 01:29:42
I don't think so. Accessability IS the primary reason for alternative text. Providing text when rendering fails is a secondary purpose. I suggested a reworded shortdesc in an e-mail to the TC: "Alternate text is a textual description of an image. Systems can display the alternate text when the image cannot be rendered or when the reader is using assistive technology." And providing an example of high-quality alt text is WAY outside the scope of the spec. If you Google, you'll find good resources.	keberlein	updated	comment	6/12/2021 00:17:41
I would argue that those are not dual purposes. If an image cannot be viewed, the alternate text describes what you are missing -- that is true regardless of the reason. It could be because you personally are not able to view it and a screen reader is needed to describe it, or because you're using a text-only interface that cannot render an image, or even because the broswer had a network breakdown and cannot display the image. Any of those reasons mean that you are not able to view the image, and the alternate text makes the meaning available to you.	randerson	new	comment	6/12/2021 21:40:40
Based on today's spec editors' ca;ll: Changing the shortdesc to read (provisionally) as "Alternate text is a textual description of an image. Systems can render the alternate text when the reader is using assistive technology or the image cannot be rendered."	keberlein	new	comment	6/12/2021 22:49:47

Best,

Kris