+*alt and +*title should probably be a part of the standard image edit view. --Arthur Brock
also see expose Image cards metadata
--John Abbe.....Wed Aug 26 17:07:52 -0700 2009
Is there anything else that needs to be done for images to be ADA compliant, or is that it?
--John Abbe.....Wed Aug 26 17:09:04 -0700 2009
Could put that formatting in *image+*right+*content and make it a Related subtab for images, but they're often uploaded in a context where that subtab would take a bunch of clicks to get to.
--John Abbe.....Sat Feb 26 15:55:35 -0800 2011
I believe the issue with ADA compliance for images revolves mostly around text readers for the blind being able to "read" the image to a blind person with some useful text (which is supposed to be in the alt field). Mouseovers are 'supposed' to be in the title field, but some browsers render alt text as mouseover text when it is present and title text isn't.
So... Yes. I believe automatic inclusion of alt text is all that's needed for ADA compliance.
Inclusion of title text is what's needed for mouseover compatibility. And inclusion of license info is what's needed for Creative Commons compliance (or even just fair use under traditional copyright law).
When can we get it?!?!?
--Arthur Brock.....Thu Jul 12 12:00:41 +0000 2012
Is this something that's going to happen? I was just about to open a new support ticket to ask about defining the alt text on an included image.
It will happen, but I can't yet say when.
The key thing to me is to keep the inclusion syntax from becoming a huge mess. At some point we'll need to round up all the user stories and come up with an elegant design solution that addresses tons of them at once. I don't want to pick these off one at a time, because anything that involves syntax change like this will be hard to migrate when we put a unified solution together.
I guess I was picturing something like this being an attribute of the card not part of the inclusion syntax. I guess there are cases where you'd want to overwrite whatever you'd set on the card, which maybe you'd need a syntax for?
ah, good point. And, as usual, the way we would do an attribute would be another card.