DescribePhotoA PictureEditor.com tool

When the right alt text is none

This is the page that tells you not to use the tool. Some images want an empty attribute, and describing them makes the page worse for the people the description was meant to help.

Silence is a decision, and it has to be written down

There is a category of image that exists only to look like something. A hairline rule drawn as a graphic. A flourish beside a heading. A stock photograph of a desk at the top of an article about accounting. A spacer left over from a template. None of them change what the page says, and all of them are on it.

The correct treatment is not a short description. It is no description: the attribute present, its value empty, which assistive technology reads as an instruction to pass over the image without a word. That is an active statement, made by you, that this image is not carrying anything.

Leaving the attribute off entirely is the opposite. It says nothing, so the software guesses — and the guess is regularly the file name, announced in full. A page can lose more to twelve missing attributes than to twelve poorly written ones.

Four tests, in the order they resolve

Would you read it aloud?

Read the paragraph the image sits in out loud, and when you reach the image, say the description. If it sounds like an interruption, it is one. This is the crudest test and it settles most cases on its own.

Is the meaning already in the text beside it?

An icon beside its own label, a photograph of the person whose name is in the caption, a chart that the paragraph underneath already explains in full. Duplication is not generosity. It is the same thing twice to someone who cannot skip either.

Would removing it change the page?

Not visually — editorially. If the image vanished and the argument survived untouched, it is decoration. If a step in a process, a number, a comparison or an identification vanished with it, it is content and it needs describing at whatever length that takes.

Is it inside a link?

Then it is almost never decorative, whatever it looks like. If the image is the only thing inside the anchor, its alt text is the link’s accessible name, and an empty value leaves a link that announces itself as a link and nothing else. Describe where it goes.

The case an automated tool always gets wrong

The same photograph can be decorative on one page and essential on another. A picture of a bridge is decoration at the top of a council newsletter and is content in an engineering report about that bridge. Nothing in the file changes between the two. What changes is the sentence around it.

That is why the decorative switch on this site is a switch you operate rather than a judgement the page makes. Every automated checker that tries to decide this for you is guessing at your page from your pixels, and it will be confidently wrong on the interesting half of your images.

Questions people ask

What is the difference between alt="" and no alt attribute?
Everything. alt="" is a statement: this image carries nothing, skip it. Assistive technology honours it and says nothing at all. An image with no alt attribute is an unanswered question, and the software falls back on whatever it can find — very often the file name, read out character by character. The two look identical in a browser and behave as opposites.
The image is pretty. Is that not worth describing?
Not if it is only pretty. Describing a decorative photograph interrupts the sentence a listener is in the middle of, to tell them about something that has no bearing on it. The generous instinct is real and it produces a worse page. Say nothing, and let them keep reading.
What about an icon next to a word that says the same thing?
Empty. A printer icon beside the word "Print" is announced twice if you describe it, and the second announcement adds nothing. The rule generalises: if the text beside the image already carries the meaning, the image is decorative regardless of how informative it looks.
Is a background image decorative by definition?
A CSS background has no alt attribute at all and is invisible to assistive technology, which is fine when it is decorative and a bug when it is not. If meaning has ended up in a background image, the fix is to move it into the document — as an img with real alt text, or as text — rather than to find somewhere to attach a description.
Our audit tool flagged every empty alt as an error. Is it wrong?
Probably. An automated checker cannot tell an image that should be silent from one whose description is missing, so some of them flag every empty value and let a human sort it out. That is a reasonable thing for a tool to do and an unreasonable thing to act on in bulk. Filling those attributes in to clear a report is how a page ends up announcing forty decorative dividers.

Where to take this next

The other written pages