skip to main content
10.1145/3308558.3313605acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

“It's almost like they're trying to hide it”: How User-Provided Image Descriptions Have Failed to Make Twitter Accessible

Published:13 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

To make images on Twitter and other social media platforms accessible to screen reader users, image descriptions (alternative text) need to be added that describe the information contained within the image. The lack of alternative text has been an enduring accessibility problem since the “alt” attribute was added in HTML 2.0 over 20 years ago, and the rise of user-generated content has only increased the number of images shared. As of 2016, Twitter provides users the ability to turn on a feature that allows descriptions to be added to images in their tweets, presumably in an effort to combat this accessibility problem. What has remained unknown is whether simply enabling users to provide alternative text has an impact on experienced accessibility. In this paper, we present a study of 1.09 million tweets with images, finding that only 0.1% of those tweets included descriptions. In a separate analysis of the timelines of 94 blind Twitter users, we found that these image tweets included descriptions more often. Even users with the feature turned on only write descriptions for about half of the images they tweet. To better understand why users provide alternative text descriptions (or not), we interviewed 20 Twitter users who have written image descriptions. Users did not remember to add alternative text, did not have time to add it, or did not know what to include when writing the descriptions. Our findings indicate that simply making it possible to provide image descriptions is not enough, and reveal future directions for automated tools that may support users in writing high-quality descriptions.

References

  1. Adobe. 2018. Add alternative text. https://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/acrobat/pdf-repair-add-alternative-text.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Apple. 2018. Supporting VoiceOver in Your App. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/accessibility/supporting_voiceover_in_your_appGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Julian Ausserhofer and Axel Maireder. 2013. National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society 16, 3 (2013), 291-314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Tim Berners-Lee and Dan Connolly. 1995. HTML 2.0 Specification. W3C: http://www. w3. org/MarkUp/html-spec 34 (1995).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jeffrey P Bigham, Ryan S Kaminsky, Richard E Ladner, Oscar M Danielsson, and Gordon L Hempton. 2006. WebInSight: Making Web Images Accessible. In Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility - Assets '06. 181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Erin L. Brady, Yu Zhong, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2013. Investigating the appropriateness of social network question asking as a resource for blind users. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '13. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (jan 2006), 77-101. arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. C-SPAN. 2018. @cspan/Members of Congress on Twitter. https://twitter.com/cspan/lists/members-of-congress{Online; accessed 2-November-2018}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. W3 Consortium 1998. HTML 4.0 specification. Technical Report. Technical report, W3 Consortium, 1998. http://www. w3. org/TR/REC-html40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. W3 Consotrium. {n. d.}. Web Content Accesisbility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron Cundiff. 2015. alt-text-bot: automatic text descriptions of images on Twitter. https://devpost.com/software/alt-text-botGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel Dardailler. 1997. The ALT-server (” An eye for an alt”).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Pierre Geurts, Damien Ernst, and Louis Wehenkel. 2006. Extremely randomized trees. Machine learning 63, 1 (2006), 3-42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Google. 2018. Content labels. https://support.google.com/accessibility/android/answer/7158690?hl=enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Darren Guinness, Edward Cutrell, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2018. Caption Crawler: Enabling Reusable Alternative Text Descriptions Using Reverse Image Search. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 518, 11 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Stephanie Hackett, Bambang Parmanto, and Xiaoming Zeng. 2004. Accessibility of Internet Websites Through Time. In Proceedings of the 6th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Assets '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 32-39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Xiaodong He and Li Deng. 2017. Deep Learning for Image-to-Text Generation: A Technical Overview. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34, 6 (nov 2017), 109-116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Instagram. 2018. Creating a More Accessible Instagram. https://instagram-press.com/blog/2018/11/28/creating-a-more-accessible-instagram/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. @JohnMu. 2018. Alt text is extremely helpful for Google Images - if you want your images to rank there. Even if you use lazy-loading, you know which image will be loaded, so get that information in there as early as possible & test what it renders as.https://twitter.com/JohnMu/status/1036901608880254976Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica 22, 3 (2012), 276-282.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Microsoft. 2017. Seeing AI | Talking camera app for those with a visual impairment. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/seeing-ai/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Microsoft. 2018. Add alternative text to a shape, picture, chart, SmartArt graphic, or other object. https://support.office.com/en-us/article/add-alternative-text-to-a-shape-picture-chart-smartart-graphic-or-other-object-44989b2a-903c-4d9a-b742-6a75b451c669Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Valerie S. Morash, Yue-Ting Siu, Joshua A. Miele, Lucia Hasty, and Steven Landau. 2015. Guiding Novice Web Workers in Making Image Descriptions Using Templates. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 7, 4, Article 12 (Nov. 2015), 21 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Meredith Ringel Morris, Annuska Zolyomi, Catherine Yao, Sina Bahram, Jeffrey P. Bigham, and Shaun K. Kane. 2016. ”With most of it being pictures now, I rarely use it”. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '16. 5506-5516. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Elliot Salisbury, Ece Kamar, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2017. Toward Scalable Social Alt Text: Conversational Crowdsourcing as a Tool for Refining Vision-to-Language Technology for the Blind. Aaai Hcomp 17Hcomp(2017), 147-156. www.aaai.orghttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/scalable_social_alttext.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hironobu Takagi, Shinya Kawanaka, Masatomo Kobayashi, Takashi Itoh, and Chieko Asakawa. 2008. Social Accessibility: Achieving Accessibility Through Collaborative Metadata Authoring. In Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Assets '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 193-200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. @todd. 2016. Accessible images for everyone. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2016/accessible-images-for-everyone.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Andranik Tumasjan, Timm Oliver Sprenger, Philipp G Sandner, and Isabell M Welpe. 2010. Predicting elections with twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment.Icwsm 10, 1 (2010), 178-185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Twitter. 2018. About your Twitter timeline. https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/twitter-timelineGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Twitter. 2018. How to make images accessible for people. https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/picture-descriptionsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Twitter. 2018. Post, retrieve and engage with Tweets. https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/post-and-engage/api-reference/get-statuses-lookup.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Twitter. 2018. Sample realtime Tweets. https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/sample-realtime/guides/recovery-and-redundancyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wikipedia contributors. 2018. List of most-followed Twitter accounts - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most-followed_Twitter_accounts&oldid=866718146{Online; accessed 2-November-2018}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Shaomei Wu and Lada A. Adamic. 2014. Visually impaired users on an online social network. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '14. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 3133-3142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Shaomei Wu, Jake M. Hofman, Winter A. Mason, and Duncan J. Watts. 2011. Who Says What to Whom on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web(WWW '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 705-714. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Shaomei Wu, Jeffrey Wieland, Omid Farivar, and Julie Schiller. 2017. Automatic alt-text: Computer-generated image descriptions for blind users on a social network service. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 1180-1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Yuhang Zhao, Shaomei Wu, Lindsay Reynolds, and Shiri Azenkot. 2017. The Effect of Computer-Generated Descriptions on Photo-Sharing Experiences of People with Visual Impairments. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW, Article 121 (Dec. 2017), 22 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WWW '19: The World Wide Web Conference
    May 2019
    3620 pages
    ISBN:9781450366748
    DOI:10.1145/3308558

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 13 May 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format