:::spoiler Needs text alternative. Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:

• usability
  • we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
  • text search is unavailable
  • the system can’t
    • reflow text to varied screen sizes
    • vary presentation (size, contrast)
    • vary modality (audio, braille)
• accessibility
  • lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
  • some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
  • users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
  • systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
• web connectivity
  • we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
  • we can’t explore wider context of the original message
• authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
• searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
• fault tolerance: no text fallback if
  • image breaks
  • image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.

Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images. ::: They don’t do much: they’re obsolete middlemen.

It’s funny, because researchers at CERN invented the World Wide Web long ago to solve this problem: a web of hyperlinking[^hyperlink] dissertation articles. Then physicists at Los Alamos National Laboratory who were building a central repository of electronic preprints seized on the web to create arΧiv for sharing those preprints, thus pioneering open access. The NIH, inspired by arΧiv to do similar for biomedical & life sciences, dreamt up E-biomed

The goal of E-biomed was to provide free access to all biomedical research. Papers submitted to E-biomed could take one of two routes: either immediately published as a preprint, or through a traditional peer review process. The peer review process was to resemble contemporary overlay journals, with an external editorial board retaining control over the process of reviewing, curating, and listing papers which would otherwise be freely accessible on the central E-biomed server. Varmus intended to realize the new possibilities presented by communicating scientific results digitally, imagining continuous conversation about published work, versioned documents, and enriched “layered” formats allowing for multiple levels of detail.

but capitulation to industry pressure led them to settle for almost none of that with PubMed Central

Under pressure from vigorous lobbying from commercial publishers and scientific societies who feared for lost profits, NIH officials announced a revised PubMed Central proposal in August 1999. PMC would receive submissions from publishers, rather than from authors as in E-biomed. Publications were allowed time-embargoed paywalls up to one year. PMC would only allow peer-reviewed work — no preprints.

So, the technology to solve this has existed since the web began, but parasitic special interests who are pretty much obsolete inhibit their realization.

[^hyperlink]: so hyperlinks could replace citations & references