I guess that auto-generated audio descriptions for (almost?) any video you want is a very, very nice feature for a blind person.

My two cents, this seems like a case where it’s better to wait for the person’s response instead of guessing.

My two cents, this seems like a comment it should be up to the OP to make instead of virtue signaling.

Yall could have gotten a serviceable answer about this topic out of ChatGPT. 2025 version of "let me google that for you"

> Can you share some ways AI has changed your life?

A question directed to GP, directly asking about their life and pointing this out is somehow virtue signalling, OK.

You can safely assume that anyone who uses “virtue signaling” unironically has nothing substantive to say.

>[People who call out performative bullshit should be ignored because they’re totally wrong and I totally mean it.]

Maybe you’re just being defensive? I’m sure he didn’t mean an attack at you personally.

It’s presumptuous of you to assume I was offended.

Accusing someone of “virtue signaling” is itself virtue signaling, just for a different in-group to use as a thought terminating cliche. It has been for decades. “Performative bullshit” is a great way to put it, just not in the way you intended.

If the OP had a substantive point to make they would have made it instead of using vague ad hominem that’s so 2008 it could be the opening track on a Best of Glenn Beck album (that’s roughly when I remember “virtue signaling” becoming a cliche).

Funny coming from someone who tells others not to speak unless asked, while no one asked them either.

From the list of virtues, which one was this signaling?

https://www.virtuesforlife.com/virtues-list/

I’d guess: Respect, consideration, authenticity, fairness.

Or should I too perhaps wait for OP to respond.

That list needs updating. Lots of things became virtuous in scenario. During Covid, fear was a virtue. You had to prove how scared you were of it, all the masks you wore because it made you “one of the good ones” to be fearful.

...you know, people can have opinions about the best way to behave outside of self-aggrandizement, even if your brain can't grasp this concept.

Fair enough. Anyway I wasn't trying to say what actually changed GP's life, I was just expressing my opinion on what video models could potentially bring as an improvement to a blind person.

>My two cents

Yikes...

I know some people will roll their eyes at this, but it's worth reflecting on how even small phrases like "my two cents" carry historical and cultural baggage. Language doesn't exist in a vacuum; it encodes assumptions about who gets to speak, whose perspectives are valued, and how we frame participation in public discourse.

The metaphor of assigning a literal monetary value to one's opinion reinforces the idea that contributions are transactional and that their "worth" is measured through an economic lens. That framing can be exclusionary, especially for people who have been historically marginalized by economic systems. It subtly normalizes a worldview where only those with enough "currency" - social, financial, or otherwise - deserve to be heard.

It's not about policing every idiom, but about being mindful of how our words might echo structures we're trying to move beyond. There are plenty of alternatives ("just my perspective" or "here's how I see it" etc.) that don't inherit that baggage. Language evolves, and we can choose to evolve it in more inclusive directions.

> The metaphor of assigning a literal monetary value to one's opinion reinforces the idea that contributions are transactional and that their "worth" is measured through an economic lens. That framing can be exclusionary, especially for people who have been historically marginalized by economic systems. It subtly normalizes a worldview where only those with enough "currency" - social, financial, or otherwise - deserve to be heard.

No. It’s acknowledging that that perhaps one’s opinion may not be as useful as somebody else’s in that moment. Which is often true!

Your first and third paragraphs are true, but they don’t apply to every bloody phrase.

people put too much weight onto words, the first lesson I learned on the internet is that words are harmless, might be deeply painful for some, but because people as my self put no weight behind them we don't even have a concept of keeping such things mindful since it never crosses our minds and it's really difficult to see if any other way even if we try to since it just seems like a bad joke.

And when I say 'it never crosses our minds' I really mean it, there's zero thoughts between thinking about a message and having it show up in a text box.

A really great example are slurs, for a lot of people they have to double take, but there's zero extra neurons fired when I read them. I guess early internet culture is to blame since all kinds of language was completely uncensored and it was very common to run into very hostile people/content.

The two cents are not literally monetary - your opinion is literally the two cents. You're contributing your understanding to the shared pot of understanding and that's represented by putting money into the pot, showing you have skin in the game. It's contributing to a larger body of knowledge by putting your small piece in - the phrases you suggest don't have that context behind them and in my opinion are worse for it. The beauty of the phrase is because the two cents are your opinion, everyone has enough, because everyone can have an opinion.

The lens through which you're analyzing the phrase is coloring how you see it negatively, and the one I'm using is doing the opposite. There is no need to change the phrase, just how it's viewed, I think.

guessing that being able to hear a description of what the camera is seeing (basically a special case of a video) in any circumstances is indeed life changing if you're blind...? take a picture through the window and ask what's the commotion? door closed outside that's normally open - take a picture, tell me if there's a sign on it? etc.

Not the gp, but currently reading a web novel with a card game where the author didn't include alt text in the card images. I contacted them about it and they started, but in the meantime ai was a big help. all kinds of other images on the internet as well when they are significant to understanding the surrounding text. better search experience when Google, DDG, and the like make finding answers difficult. I might use smart glasses for better outdoor orientation, though a good solution might take some time. phone camera plus ai is also situationally useful.

As a (web app) developer I never quite sure what to put in alt. Figured you might have some advice here?

The question to ask is, what a sighted person learns after looking at the image? The answer is the alt text. E.g if the image is a floppy, maybe you communicate that this is the save button. If it shows a cat sleeping on the windowsill, the alt text is yep: "my cat looking cute while sleeping on the windowsill".

I really like how you framed this as the takeaway or learning that needs to happen as what should be in the alt and not a recitation of the image. Where I've often had issues is more for things like business charts and illustrations and less cute cat photos.

It might be that you’re not perfectly clear on what exactly you’re trying to convey with the image and why it’s there.

sorry, snark does not help with my desire to improve accessibility in the wild.

I really didn’t mean to be snarky. Maybe if I was speaking, my tone would have made that more clear, or I could have worded it differently.

“Why is this here? What am I trying to say?” are super important things in design and also so easy to lose track of.

What would you put for this? "Graph of All-Transactions House Price Index for the United States 1975-2025"?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USSTHPI

Charts are one I've wondered about, do I need to try to describe the trend of the data, or provide several conclusions that a person seeing the chart might draw?

Just saying "It's a chart" doesn't feel like it'd be useful to someone who can't see the chart. But if the other text on the page talks about the chart, then maybe identifying it as the chart is enough?

What are you trying to point out with your graph in general? Write that basically. Usually graphs are added for some purpose, and assuming it's not purposefully misleading, verbalizing the purpose usually works well.

I might be an unusual case, but when I present graphs/charts it's not usually because I'm trying to point something out. It's usually a "here's some data, what conclusions do you draw from this?" and hopefully a discussion will follow. Example from recently: "Here is a recent survey of adults in the US and their religious identification, church attendance levels, self-reported "spirituality" level, etc. What do you think is happening?"

Would love to hear a good example of alt text for something like that where the data isn't necessarily clear and I also don't want to do any interpreting of the data lest I influence the person's opinion.

An image is the wrong way to convey something like that to a blind person. As written in one of my other comments, give the data in a table format or a custom widget that could be explored.

> and hopefully a discussion will follow.

Yeah, I think I misunderstood the context. I understood/assumed it to be for an article/post you're writing, where you have something you want to say in general/some point of what you're writing. But based on what you wrote now, it seems to be more about how to caption an image you're sending to a blind person in a conversation/discussion of some sort.

I guess at that point it'd be easier for them if you just share the data itself, rather than anything generated by the data, especially if there is nothing you want to point out.

It depends on the context. What do you want to say? How much of it is said in the text? Can the content of the image be inferred from the text part? Even in the best scenario though, giving a summary of the image in the alt text / caption could be immensely useful and include the reader in your thought process.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/ including how write alt text for charts.

a plaintext table with the actual data

Charts would have a link to tabular data. It’s the “business illustrations” that are more about understanding purpose.

"A meaningless image of a chart, from which nevertheless emanates a feeling of stonks going up"

The logic stays the same though the answer is longer and not always easy. Just saying "business chart" is totally useless. You can make a choice on what to focus and say "a chart of the stock for the last five years with constant improvement and a clear increase by 17 percent in 2022" (if it is a simple point that you are trying to make) or you can provide an html table with the datapoints if there is data that the user needs to explore on their own.

but the table exists outside the alt text, right? i don't know a mechanism to say "this html table represents the contents of this image" , in a way that screen readers and other accessibility technologies take advantage of

The figure tag has both image and caption tags that link them. As far as I remember, some content could be marked as screen reader only if you don't want for the table to be visible to the rest of the users.

Additionally, recently I've been a participant in accessibility studies where charts, diagrams and the like have been structured to be easier to explore with a sr. Those needed js to work and some of them looked custom, but they are also an alternative way to layer data.

Accessible info graphics [1]

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20130922065731/http://www.last-c...

One way to frame it is: "how would I describe this image to somebody sat next to me?"

Important to add for blind people: "... assuming they never seen anything and visual metaphors won't work"

The amount of times I've seem captions that wouldn't make sense for people who never been able to see is staggering, I don't think most people realize how visual our typical language usage is.

I'm gonna flip this around... have you tried pasting the image (and the relevant paragraph of text) and asking ChatGPT (or another LLM) to generate the alt text for the image and see what it produces?

For example... https://chatgpt.com/share/692f1578-2bcc-8011-ac8f-a57f2ab6a7...

> I'm gonna flip this around... have you tried pasting the image (and the relevant paragraph of text) and asking ChatGPT (or another LLM) to generate the alt text for the image and see what it produces?

There's a great app by an indie developer that uses ML to identify objects in images. Totally scriptable via JavaScript, shell script and AppleScript. macOS only.

Could be 10, 100 or 1,000 images [1].

[1]: https://flyingmeat.com/retrobatch/

> As a (web app) developer I never quite sure what to put in alt.

Are you making these five mistakes when writing alt text? [1] Images tutorial [2] Alternative Text [3]

[1]: https://www.a11yproject.com/posts/are-you-making-these-five-...

[2]: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/

[3]: https://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/

Image descriptions. TalkBack on Android has it built in and uses Gemini. VoiceOver still uses some older, less accurate, and far less descriptive ML model, but we can share images to Seeing AI or Be My Eyes and such and get a description.

Video descriptions, through PiccyBot, have made watching more visual videos or videos where things happen that don't make sense without visuals much easier. Of course, it'd be much better if YouTube incorporated audio description through AI the same way they do captions, but that may happen in a good 2 years or so. I'm not holding my breath. Google as a whole is hard to get accessibility out of more than the bare minimum.

Looking up information like restaurant menus. Yes it can make things up, but worst-case, the waiter says they don't have that.