Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A picture may be worth a thousand words but what might those words be? How do we go about finding those words? Images are often used to convey information, supplement textual content, and/or add visual appeal to documents. Unless the user can see the image and properly interpret it, the user may not receive the same information. While containers exist for providing text alternatives in various types of electronic documents (including Web pages), they are rarely used. When they are used, the text alternatives are not informative. While guidance currently exists regarding which containers to use in order to provide text alternatives, there is little guidance available regarding what information to include in these containers and how to compose text alternatives. The purpose of this work is to establish a procedure for identifying the information being communicated within an image and provide guidance on how to produce informative text alternatives. Based on related information in the areas of Web accessibility, library cataloguing, captioning and audio description, image retrieval and indexing, art description, and tactile representation, important information communicated by an image were identified and a procedure for producing informative text alternatives using that information was developed. Studies were conducted to determine the effectiveness of the procedure to identify important information about an image. Study 1 determined the information identified about an image when the procedure was not available. It also suggested reasons why people would opt to not provide a text alternative for an image. Study 2 determined the information that people would identify when they were given the procedure and a set of questions to help identify information about an image. Study 3 determined the information people identified when they were required to consider all of the different types of information that may be important in an image. The results from these three studies were compared to determine the effectiveness of the procedure to identify important information about the image. Study 4 presented the information identified in the previous three studies to sighted and visually impaired users to evaluate the importance of such information. This study determined the quality of the information identified in the first three studies and the ability of the procedure to identify important information for a wide set of images. The results of these studies showed that the procedure was effective in identifying a greater amount of important information than without the procedure. Additional guidance was also identified to further help people create informative and useful text alternatives. The studies also showed that the procedure could be applied by different user groups to a wide range of images. The procedure was submitted to the International Standards Organization to become a technical specification, which will be available to people around the world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».