There’s also the element of wasting the blind person’s time. I work in enterprise software and our application meets WCAG guidelines but… it’s a busy, text-heavy, actions-heavy application. It can take 5 minutes for a screen reader to read the entire page. Other websites are worse - images as buttons, flavour images and hero banners and icons everywhere. Again, a much more accessible version is just presenting them with what they actually want - a cleaner, leaner, more contextual page like the ones we built in the 90s before images loaded instantly.
So part of me wonders if blind people actually enjoy “listening to memes” or if they’d rather skip it and hear a text-based joke or an audio/video joke. I did specifically say I wanted a blind person’s opinion on it.
I think you’ve underestimated the wordcount and I think you don’t get how memes are shared if you think adding 4 minutes to their re-transmission wouldn’t matter. I cars that blind people enjoy the internet but I absolutely do not think “searchability” is a good reason to transcribe “Drake meme but it’s an animal girl. Top panel. Animal girl looking repulsed. The item she is repulsed by is the logo of a Linux package manager called Flatpak…”
I specifically said searchable referring to images in general, not memes. I don’t think people search memes that often.
i also didn’t specify verbosity. Blind people are people, idk why we’re talking like they’re a different species. Whether or not you should alt text an image is directly related to whether or not you consider that image part of the content.
a meme is the content, when someone is looking at a post that’s what they’re looking at and reading. if someone wouldn’t want to read it they can stop reading as soon as they see that it’s a meme. if they want to read it they can keep going.
so no, I don’t think meme transcriptions should be as verbose. so it’s just “animal girl is repulsed by flatpak”. you’re explaining it to people who don’t see as well, not people who were born yesterday.
There’s also the element of wasting the blind person’s time. I work in enterprise software and our application meets WCAG guidelines but… it’s a busy, text-heavy, actions-heavy application. It can take 5 minutes for a screen reader to read the entire page. Other websites are worse - images as buttons, flavour images and hero banners and icons everywhere. Again, a much more accessible version is just presenting them with what they actually want - a cleaner, leaner, more contextual page like the ones we built in the 90s before images loaded instantly.
So part of me wonders if blind people actually enjoy “listening to memes” or if they’d rather skip it and hear a text-based joke or an audio/video joke. I did specifically say I wanted a blind person’s opinion on it.
I think you’ve underestimated the wordcount and I think you don’t get how memes are shared if you think adding 4 minutes to their re-transmission wouldn’t matter. I cars that blind people enjoy the internet but I absolutely do not think “searchability” is a good reason to transcribe “Drake meme but it’s an animal girl. Top panel. Animal girl looking repulsed. The item she is repulsed by is the logo of a Linux package manager called Flatpak…”
I specifically said searchable referring to images in general, not memes. I don’t think people search memes that often.
i also didn’t specify verbosity. Blind people are people, idk why we’re talking like they’re a different species. Whether or not you should alt text an image is directly related to whether or not you consider that image part of the content.
a meme is the content, when someone is looking at a post that’s what they’re looking at and reading. if someone wouldn’t want to read it they can stop reading as soon as they see that it’s a meme. if they want to read it they can keep going.
so no, I don’t think meme transcriptions should be as verbose. so it’s just “animal girl is repulsed by flatpak”. you’re explaining it to people who don’t see as well, not people who were born yesterday.