• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago
    Needs accessibility: image of pure text for no legitimate reason.

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

    • 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
    • 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.

    • ulterno@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also, images require a hundreds of thousands of characters even when they are not conveying a thousand words.
      And all of those require energy to be sent to places, unlike what some rando on the internet once said.