(no subject)

[dragonlady7]

descriptions, accessibility, really read that linked article

via https://ift.tt/DqTQiPX

it’s been about a month since post date, lol, i do have the link! the article is against access https://href.li/?https://audio.mcsweeneys.net/transcripts/against_access.html on mcsweeneys by john lee clark.

essentially i was thinking about how frustrated i am by image descriptions that serve to Literally Describe an image piece by piece rather than actually make it comprehensible - strict objectivity is bad accessibility; it’s better to put a little bit of yourself and your interpretation into the description and risk getting something wrong, than it is to focus solely on Objectively What The Facts Are and in the process misrepresent the image.

for example, someone described the ad reinhardt image in my post by saying “a man is pointing at an abstract painting and smiling”; this is objectively true (it’s happening in the illustration!) but AS A DESCRIPTION it is misleading, because it makes it sound like he approves of the image or enjoys it (he’s smiling, isn’t he?). it’s obvious to any viewer of the image that this isn’t actually what’s happening. a better description would just be to say the man is mocking the painting, without the details of exactly how he is standing or his facial expression, even if those are “more objective” descriptors (Your picture was not posted)