One problem with using Extensions to forcibly alter webpages - e.g. to convert them into a dark mode - is that they may have unexpected side-effects, which means that you cannot use it in your “main” instance that you use daily, or at the very least then you need to have a “backup” instance that always just works. I think I even have a couple (one was dedicated specifically to things like Google Docs), but I cannot trust them to work reliably so I do not even think of them anymore, plus they keep falling behind and not updating their code and after that do not work whenever the browser updates its own mandatory standards, and then I have to go hunt for another one, or else just find some other way to deal with it (reduce screen brightness and make sure not to work in a darker setting).
In order to really make a difference, one of the big-name browsers would need to integrate a change into its main code, which would then bring large amounts of market share users into the mix, helping to make development of the code a greater ROI. Though these days, almost everyone it seems uses Chrome (at least as reported stats show), and even all Firefox users simply get ignored - like, as long as a webpage runs on Chrome, companies stop testing it. Fuck Safari, Edge, Firefox, and most especially anything even smaller than that like LibreWolf.
All that said, most other browsers besides Firefox insert a small broken-image-looking icon whenever an image cannot be loaded. Though with increased connection reliability these days (inside the continental United States anyway), the number of situations where it would even be needed is vastly reduced compared to the past. And as for other places - like maybe Hawaii - well… fuck them. It is sad, but true: when Google makes e.g. Google Docs (that also lacks a dark mode), they did whatever tinkering they felt that they had to do at the absolute minimum in order to make a profit or indirect profitable impact, then called it a day and stopped.
Though Firefox was supposed to be different - it was supposed to lean heavily into its open-source nature, to provide a level of service to its true customers, the actual people using it, rather than the “customers” being the advertising companies who pay for certain features to be developed and pay far MORE for certain features to ever NOT be developed, if you take my meaning. Case in point: how Chrome now refuses to block ads.:-(
But anyway, none of the big browsers seem to be doing much with the Alt text these days - not showing it as a tooltip, and in the case of Firefox, not even showing it at all in some cases, or if it is, then it is just a weird text out in the middle of nowhere that seems disconnected to literally everything.
For instance, if you are capable of seeing this, compare the first and second renderings of “Test” in the image below:
The top one is how Firefox renders it - just this singular word out in the middle of nowhere, where even though you see it and it is therefore potentially better than leaving the insides of the brackets [] totally blank, it doesn’t really explain or convey much of anything at all. Whereas the rendering below puts the broken-icon image next to the alternative text, that helps convey that this was meant to be an image, but instead you are seeing the alternative text. Otherwise, instead of putting [Test] inside of the brackets, someone would need to go as far as saying like [Test - this was meant to be an image but instead you are seeing this text here.]. That is a lot of work to place onto people who need to consider accessibility options for each and every image, and especially on a social media site like Lemmy that are meant to be fast-paced conversations, it simply will not happen. Therefore, my point is that Firefox is letting people down, by not using the same treatment that all other common browsers choose to do - they should have upped their game, in order to stay competitive. This is just one of many reasons why I continue to use Chrome, despite how ad-blocking is now disabled, unless I specifically need to go to YouTube to play multiple videos in a row (even then I will often just use Chrome to avoid the hassle of switching), or to visit a news website, which are so annoying that trying to read them without ad blocking is not worthwhile at all - i.e. I would rather read nothing at all then have to put up with their nonsense:-(. BTW, on Android I use Firefox, so here I am just talking about desktop browsing.
About that CommonMark page: oh I see, yeah you are right. However, even given your correctness, I still think that I am right: if someone like me who knows all of HTML, CSS (a tiny bit), and JS (an even smaller bit), and cares about accessibility did not realize that fact, then something is VERY wrong with that page. And right away I know what it is: that font is TINY. Those buttons are ENORMOUS in size - the width of the “code” and “previous exericse” is more than a third and approaching half the damn page width (at a glance, as I resize the window, it looks like ~40% of the left-hand size that excludes the right-hand vertical bar area with those square buttons?), and the text inside of the left-hand box and especially the size of that M in the right-hand box is ENORMOUS, but the text of the actual “Add alt text of Logo and title of Creative Commons licensed to this image:” is entirely missable, even given how few elements exist on that page. Normally, a tiny font size is a literal trigger, an indicator that “this item is skippable, of lesser importance, a footnote only for someone who is hunting/rooting/digging deeper into the details, but not for casual inspection”, and sometimes people say the phrase “legal text”, like just ignore it and go on with your day, unless you have a professional reason to care about it. So for this aspect to already be buried on page 8 of not even the help document but the link from the Lemmy help document… I guarantee that something >90% of people on the Fediverse are going to not know this, even given the highly technically skilled nature of our community. Hence why I was saying: if we wanted more people using Lemmy (or Mastodon, Kbin/Mbin, etc.) to know this, then additional work would need to be done.
Likewise I have never done anything at all with Mastodon, but I LOVE hearing how they are trying to increase their accessibility - that’s wonderful:-).
And at least you convinced me to start putting something there here on Lemmy - so far I have been using the short word “img”, that is more or less quick to type and seems to get the job done, at least insofar as an individual can offer, without going further e.g. to offer to do a redesign of that CommonMark page (that seems certain to be refused even if a finished product were offered wholesale with no strings attached).
One problem with using Extensions to forcibly alter webpages - e.g. to convert them into a dark mode - is that they may have unexpected side-effects, which means that you cannot use it in your “main” instance that you use daily, or at the very least then you need to have a “backup” instance that always just works. I think I even have a couple (one was dedicated specifically to things like Google Docs), but I cannot trust them to work reliably so I do not even think of them anymore, plus they keep falling behind and not updating their code and after that do not work whenever the browser updates its own mandatory standards, and then I have to go hunt for another one, or else just find some other way to deal with it (reduce screen brightness and make sure not to work in a darker setting).
In order to really make a difference, one of the big-name browsers would need to integrate a change into its main code, which would then bring large amounts of market share users into the mix, helping to make development of the code a greater ROI. Though these days, almost everyone it seems uses Chrome (at least as reported stats show), and even all Firefox users simply get ignored - like, as long as a webpage runs on Chrome, companies stop testing it. Fuck Safari, Edge, Firefox, and most especially anything even smaller than that like LibreWolf.
All that said, most other browsers besides Firefox insert a small broken-image-looking icon whenever an image cannot be loaded. Though with increased connection reliability these days (inside the continental United States anyway), the number of situations where it would even be needed is vastly reduced compared to the past. And as for other places - like maybe Hawaii - well… fuck them. It is sad, but true: when Google makes e.g. Google Docs (that also lacks a dark mode), they did whatever tinkering they felt that they had to do at the absolute minimum in order to make a profit or indirect profitable impact, then called it a day and stopped.
Though Firefox was supposed to be different - it was supposed to lean heavily into its open-source nature, to provide a level of service to its true customers, the actual people using it, rather than the “customers” being the advertising companies who pay for certain features to be developed and pay far MORE for certain features to ever NOT be developed, if you take my meaning. Case in point: how Chrome now refuses to block ads.:-(
But anyway, none of the big browsers seem to be doing much with the Alt text these days - not showing it as a tooltip, and in the case of Firefox, not even showing it at all in some cases, or if it is, then it is just a weird text out in the middle of nowhere that seems disconnected to literally everything.
For instance, if you are capable of seeing this, compare the first and second renderings of “Test” in the image below:
The top one is how Firefox renders it - just this singular word out in the middle of nowhere, where even though you see it and it is therefore potentially better than leaving the insides of the brackets [] totally blank, it doesn’t really explain or convey much of anything at all. Whereas the rendering below puts the broken-icon image next to the alternative text, that helps convey that this was meant to be an image, but instead you are seeing the alternative text. Otherwise, instead of putting [Test] inside of the brackets, someone would need to go as far as saying like [Test - this was meant to be an image but instead you are seeing this text here.]. That is a lot of work to place onto people who need to consider accessibility options for each and every image, and especially on a social media site like Lemmy that are meant to be fast-paced conversations, it simply will not happen. Therefore, my point is that Firefox is letting people down, by not using the same treatment that all other common browsers choose to do - they should have upped their game, in order to stay competitive. This is just one of many reasons why I continue to use Chrome, despite how ad-blocking is now disabled, unless I specifically need to go to YouTube to play multiple videos in a row (even then I will often just use Chrome to avoid the hassle of switching), or to visit a news website, which are so annoying that trying to read them without ad blocking is not worthwhile at all - i.e. I would rather read nothing at all then have to put up with their nonsense:-(. BTW, on Android I use Firefox, so here I am just talking about desktop browsing.
About that CommonMark page: oh I see, yeah you are right. However, even given your correctness, I still think that I am right: if someone like me who knows all of HTML, CSS (a tiny bit), and JS (an even smaller bit), and cares about accessibility did not realize that fact, then something is VERY wrong with that page. And right away I know what it is: that font is TINY. Those buttons are ENORMOUS in size - the width of the “code” and “previous exericse” is more than a third and approaching half the damn page width (at a glance, as I resize the window, it looks like ~40% of the left-hand size that excludes the right-hand vertical bar area with those square buttons?), and the text inside of the left-hand box and especially the size of that M in the right-hand box is ENORMOUS, but the text of the actual “Add alt text of Logo and title of Creative Commons licensed to this image:” is entirely missable, even given how few elements exist on that page. Normally, a tiny font size is a literal trigger, an indicator that “this item is skippable, of lesser importance, a footnote only for someone who is hunting/rooting/digging deeper into the details, but not for casual inspection”, and sometimes people say the phrase “legal text”, like just ignore it and go on with your day, unless you have a professional reason to care about it. So for this aspect to already be buried on page 8 of not even the help document but the link from the Lemmy help document… I guarantee that something >90% of people on the Fediverse are going to not know this, even given the highly technically skilled nature of our community. Hence why I was saying: if we wanted more people using Lemmy (or Mastodon, Kbin/Mbin, etc.) to know this, then additional work would need to be done.
Likewise I have never done anything at all with Mastodon, but I LOVE hearing how they are trying to increase their accessibility - that’s wonderful:-).
And at least you convinced me to start putting something there here on Lemmy - so far I have been using the short word “img”, that is more or less quick to type and seems to get the job done, at least insofar as an individual can offer, without going further e.g. to offer to do a redesign of that CommonMark page (that seems certain to be refused even if a finished product were offered wholesale with no strings attached).