It's actually accessible. take a look at this tweet and inspect the image. all the code is in the alt attribute. So they have thought of that. This will only be if you tweet it from their webapp though.
It would be cool if there was a way to copy paste the text easier.
>It would be cool if there was a way to copy paste the text easier.
Like, just using text? Maybe even send it through a syntax highlighter first?
I can't be the only one that was irked at Amazon for spending years making their product promo pages or prominent buttons as hard-coded images instead of text.
Horribly inaccessible, over the top, looks terrible on HiDPI devices, looks terrible on a non-Mac because it was clear that their designers were using OS X font rendering, so it looked totally inconsistent.
My favorite part is being on mobile and having to scroll left and right to see the image, or the image has been fit-to-scale is flatly impossibly too small to read.
I feel stodgy, but this entire effort is annoying. Just like the stupid GIFs on project READMEs that play too slow or too fast and have to be watched 50 times to grasp what's going on. Meanwhile asciinema exists and is superior in every way (seekable, pausable, text-selectable, etc).
Unfortunately the web platform has failed to provide a sensible way to embed HTML content, so images and videos are how people actually share things. You can take an image and save it to your device and share it to any social media service without doing anything special. You just can't get that experience with asciinema or any other sort of rich format. It's a real bummer.
The person with accessibility problems just told you that it is a potential accessibility issue. Perhaps we should ask them whether alt text will help, before telling them that it will.
tarboreus, what's your experience with alt text for this kind of thing?
In a related manner, I'd actually be curious to hear in general about other things we do/don't do that makes life more difficult for blind people on the web.
This is the exact situation alt text is designed for. If you use alt text properly and it still isn't handicap accessible, it's not your fault full stop.
If accessibility is the exact situation alt text is designed for, and it works for the most part, who is to blame for it not being accessible if not the person putting inaccessible text in there? Merely providing something is not equivalent to providing a good solution.
By my understanding (as a sighted person who has relatively zero experience using such features) alt text is for short pieces of text that might aid in communication of an image to a blind person. I have even less understanding on whether or not dumping a chunk of code in there would be at all useful, and I expect very few sighted persons would know better. Hence my complaint, and hence my question.
Yes, "alt" attribute is for short descriptions. From the w3.org site:
"The alt text should be the most concise description possible of the image’s purpose. If anything more than a short phrase or sentence is needed, it would be better to use one of the long description methods discussed in complex images."
The alternatives for long descriptions are the "longdesc" attribute, "figure" with "figcaption" tag or the "aria-describedby".
True, but I kind of get where their headspace is here. It feels like a weird jaunt to rely on alt tags for what is ultimately just simulacrum of what exists in the alt tags considering that-for the sake of accessibility-going with plain text to begin with probably makes a lot more sense.
If it has alt text, we can't ask for much more. But typically pictures on Twitter don't have alt text. I've perhaps encountered an image with alt text once. But I'm glad that at least there will be alt text if they use it in the web app.
In short, if the image has alt text, it's fine. But this seems likely to be used in ways that mean uploads without alt text.
I'm not blind, and hate it for the same reason. I could see implementing a code snippet service (ala gist) with Twitter Cards API support. The card image would likewise be useless to folks with vision impairment, and useless to everyone for cut and paste. But the link would at least connect users to an accessible and copyable text version.
Do you dislike paintings of Oranges, the human body on exhibition or other such pieces if art?
Paintings, and Prints, tend to take real world subjects and artistically adapt their native format into a 2d perspective.
This transformation typically removes fidelity oringinally found in the subject. Eg, you can't (or shouldn't) eat a painting of an orange, nor could one typically feel the texture of an orange via a painting.
Alternatively there may be some benefits to the transformation. I'm not sure but in this case one may be able to display more content via the image on Twitter, then transmitted via the oringinal text format due to tweet length "string" hard limits vs image size limitations.
