• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      1·
      1 hour ago

      Then it would still be not nice (ie, patronizing & wrong) for the reasons stated in the rest of the message.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          1·
          26 minutes ago

          The disabled disagree with you.

          People overthink this: just linking the web as designed is not that hard & it doesn’t break everything like accessibility/usability, digging for context, etc.

          Why links?

          Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:

          • usability
            • we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
            • text search is unavailable
            • the system can’t
              • reflow text to varied screen sizes
              • vary presentation (size, contrast)
              • vary modality (audio, braille)
          • accessibility
            • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
            • some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
            • users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
            • systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
          • web connectivity
            • we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
            • we can’t explore wider context of the original message
          • authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
          • searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
          • fault tolerance: no text fallback if
            • image breaks
            • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

          Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.