Why not just use a picture?

2019-12-18T12:19:41Z

I have seen a number of times where people so the equivalent of passing on a flyer or poster online: sending an image containing text and pictures.

I'd like people to do better and think it might be worth me writing something to point people to.

I tend to aim for the positive benefits of solutions rather than highlighting the problems.

This would be aimed mainly at the original author as subsequent forwarders won't have the original source and so would need to transcribe the image.

I'd acknowledge that it might take a bit more work to do what I ask and a bit more technical knowledge.

I'd acknowledge than an image works perfectly well for many people and has the advantages of being just what was designed.

I'd acknowledge that for some things, the image is the thing and just isn't as useful when described, but you'd still want a note telling you that.

I'd note that image recognition is improving and might go part way or all the way to solving this automatically but I don't think it is widely available and accurate enough yet.

There are times you only get an image, such as printout or on a screen. There may still be chances to offer the publication in other formats or allow an easier link to an online version using a shortened URL for easier typing, a QR code or similar. I wonder how much it would cost to embed Near Field Communication (NFC) in a poster, though readers would still need to know to access it.

Main reasons for making information available as text or in a structured computer readable format (HTML, CSV, ALT text description etc.):

Accessibility for people with sight disabilities.
- More people can be interested in your thing than those who can see it. Lots of people in the world can't see so well but can access information in other ways or with assistive tools. While you could make more accessible versions available on demand, doing so proactively lowers a small barrier to access and may reduce your future workload as well as showing you care about inclusion. There may be legal requirements for accessibility.
Accessibility for people using devices were images are harder to use or impossible
- If someone is using a small device or relying on audio while walking say, your thing will be more useful to them if it could be read out say. Some tech is still text based, standard text messaging on phones say or the time to transfer images slows things down too much in places with limited bandwidth such as on a train or in areas of dodgy mobile signal.
Discoverability
- Text can be indexed by big search engines on the internet and many people find things by searching even if they have seen them before. Images are much harder to search. Social media can find keywords to highlight to users also.
- Text can be indexed by local personal search engines. If I can search my phone, email or forum for text then I can find something that I would have more difficulty accessing as just an image.
Resuability
- If I want to add an event to my personal or shared calendar I can cut and paste text or it might even be able to do that for me. Why should I need to type in the details again, taking my time and effort and perhaps leading to errors? Small barriers could lead to lower audiences.
- For research findings, numbers are much more useful for reuse than a graph.
- If you want me to promote your event, why not make it as easy as possible for me to share the details (which I might want to edit for space, add comments too or rearrange)?
- Not just people can read text. Perhaps what you say could in the future become part of global knowledge mediated by computers. There are already projects doing automated inference generation from academic papers.

comments

skibbley

Why not just use a picture?