You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Accessibility’ tag.

…but am now addicted to Verbosity.  Thanks Jorge.

I was looking into the descriptive game peekaboom and found a collection of games from carnegie mellon By playing the games, the descriptive words used are stored so that images will be *properly* described for search enigines.  My favourite was Verbosity, which is comparable to the gameshow Password.  You are paired with an anonymous player, and have to guess the word from each others clues. I found myself getting very frustrated at the other players, when they gave me clues I didn’t get or when they couldn’t make a guess over my obviously intelligent hints! If it’s this hard to describe “bit” or “limb” how will I ever describe a map…*sigh*

I had some problems with the peekaboom games, maybe there just weren’t enough players online as you need a few in order to play.  I think it is their oldschool version of the gwap games though.  They explain the problem of the lack of meaningful description for images:

One of the major accessibility problems is the lack of descriptive captions for images. Visually impaired individuals commonly surf the Web using screen readers, programs that convert the text of a webpage into synthesized speech. Although screen readers are helpful, they cannot determine the contents of images on the Web that do not have descriptive captions — but the vast majority of images are not accompanied by proper captions and therefore are inaccessible to the blind. Today, it is the responsibility of Web designers to caption images. We want to take this responsibility off their hands.

The article Peekaboom: A Game for Locating Objects in Images Luis von Ahm, Ruoran Liu and Manuel Blum will be a good resource. Allowing the users to propose descriptions, add keywords etc to maps would allow for alot of the visual inferences that are missing from the data behind the map to be applied.