qualifier to specify alternative text (alt text) that is to be rendered when the element to which it is applied cannot be rendered. For the legend, use P2096 instead.
Français : Cette propriété est nécessaire, notamment, pour les infobox important des données de Wikidata. En effet, les personnes utilisant Wikipédia sans images (notamment, les personnes ne bénéficiant que d'une faible connectivité à l'Internet ou les aveugles) ne peuvent pas bénéficier d'une description de l'image qu'elle ne voit pas dans ces infobox important des images de Wikidata.
Contrainte : qualifier pour les propriétés du type de données Commons media uniquement.
English: This property is needed because we use a lot of infobox importing Wikidata properties on our wikis. For now, peoples navigating without images (peoples with low Internet connectivity or blind peoples) can't access a description of the missing images in these infobox.
Constraint: qualifier to be used for properties with commonsMedia datatype only.
Comment I think this is a good idea; however maybe a longer property name would be helpful? Not everybody is familiar with HTML property names. "image caption" perhaps? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care of the name. Choose what you want. When we put an image on a wiki, we do it in a form similar to this : [[File:NAME OF THE FILE (=P18)|thumb|upright=|alt=|Image caption (=P2096)]]. The image caption isn't the image description. I have put an example above with this wikicode : [[File:Al Grey (Gottlieb).jpg|thumb|alt=Black and white photography of a smiling black man with a white hat and a dark jacket holding a trombone in front of him with his both hands with wood wall behind.|[[:w:en:Al Grey|Al Grey]] by William P. Gottlieb (1980s)]]. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The appropriate "alt" value is dependent on the context where the image is used. In the example above, for example, it should be different when used on the Wikipedia articles "Pith helmet", "Trombone", "Al Grey" or "William P. Gottlieb". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits21:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON: That's incorrect. The alternative text used for an image on any Wikipedia depends strongly on context. Alternative text for wikis is made up of the alt text attribute and the image caption, as any assistive technology will read both of them. Secondly, if the value of this property is to be used in an infobox, then editors need to be aware that irrelevant information is quite unlikely to be acceptable: in the example image above you certainly wouldn't be describing the wooden wall in an en-wp infobox, as it's completely unrelated to the subject of the image. --86.24.232.11600:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The description text does depend on context but context is partly given. If the Al Grey picture is stored on the item for Al Grey as the main image the context is clear enough that describing the wall behind him is besides the point. ChristianKl (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose with current name/description. The description and name of the property should make clear of what it's about and how it is supposed to be used. ChristianKl (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe Simon Villeneuve didn't write a perfect description (errrare humanum est) but the use is very clear, there is literally hundred of thousand documents on the web describe this attribute so the scope is quite limpid. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON:When we decide whether or not to accept a proposal, it's about deciding whether a given proposal is up to the task of being good for modeling a problem domain. It's worth to wait till we have a good way to model a problem before we create a property. ChristianKl (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: the best minds of the Interent are modeling this attribute for more than 22 years now, it's even notable enough to have it's on Wikipedia article; I think it can be safely assumed that the problem is well known and that the modeling solution is good enough. But of course, if you have suggestions of improvements, don't hesitate to share them. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON:If you pretend that the problem that we face on Wikidata when describing this property is exactly the same that's faced by the creators of the html standard, that's a good way to get me to oppose your proposal. One of the reasons the designers of the spec choose "alt" is that it's short and thus requires little bandwith. We have different design constraints and before I support the proposal I want name and description that serves our design contraints well.
Wikidata properties have a name and a description. When it comes to making a property proposal it's important to make them as clear as possible. If this property is supposed to be used as a qualifier, look at the way other qualifiers are described. There description texts usually doesn't talk about the fact that it's a property. The description of a property is also not Wikitext but a common string. That makes the current description text unworkable.
Besides if you think there so much good work on how to model this property, could you please link to three different software packages and investigate why the choose a specific name and which description they use? Maybe there's really a best practice as far as software libraries go that don't try to minimize text length. ChristianKl (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit shocking we don't have this already. Some image suppliers may already provide it. (Though I agree with the comment up thread, that's it definitely a skill to learn how to write these). Jheald (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the proposal doesn't specify that it's limited to providing alt texts for images. What kind of other alt texts would it provide? Is there a good reason we don't go with the enwiki name of "alt attribute" or "alt attribute of image"? ChristianKl (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
« alt », « alt text » or « alt attribute » are synonyms, they are interchangeable so we can change for either one. As I added to the description of this proposal, it can be use on « every properties with commonsMedia datatype » (it will be mostly image but it's not limited to them, see the HTML rules and accessibility rules for more information). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: yes, obviously... and? What do you propose? I've shortened the description and changed for wikipedia's articles names as label, fell free to propose better! (and this is a wiki, we can still change the label, description and uses of the property after the creation). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want that people who make a property proposal (or want it to be implemented) put in the work to think about how best to create the names and descriptions of they proposal they want to get adopted. ChristianKl (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON: Status quo, seems to be that nothing is happening with the property given that I did nothing to move it forward. Given that people pointed to the huge amount of prior art I still think that it's worthwhile for someone to check how our label/description relates to the prior art of other projects. ChristianKl (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just want to vote my support here - particularly with the longer name "alt attribute". I understand the context concern - but we have that generally when infoboxes are used in wiki's, a local editor can decide to override the information provided from wikidata with their own text if necessary. Context matters, but a verbal description of the image or other media can be written in a reasonably generic way that would work in most contexts. Maybe wikidata usage instructions for this property could mention this issue. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose P2096 is mainly here as Commons isn't quite ready yet, but I don't think we should expand this further. --- Jura11:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This would be very useful - and I'm surprised it's not already implemented. In its most basic case of just describing what is in the image for visually impared people, it would be very useful. More complicated situations where that description needs to be adapted for different situations can come later, if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is ambiguous, context dependant, subjective, unstructured data which is different for every language. It certaily does not belong on Wikidata. It may possibly belong on Commons. --Yair rand (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Support obviously, but it will need a good documentation on how to write a good Alt attribute. VIGNERON (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment I think this is a good idea; however maybe a longer property name would be helpful? Not everybody is familiar with HTML property names. "image caption" perhaps? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The appropriate "alt" value is dependent on the context where the image is used. In the example above, for example, it should be different when used on the Wikipedia articles "Pith helmet", "Trombone", "Al Grey" or "William P. Gottlieb". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose with current name/description. The description and name of the property should make clear of what it's about and how it is supposed to be used. ChristianKl (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Wait as it may be more relevant for Commons rather than Wikidata. ~★ nmaia d 17:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done Per comments. It might be relevant to propose it again once structured data is available on Commons.--Micru (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)