Hubbry Logo
Alt attributeAlt attributeMain
Open search
Alt attribute
Community hub
Alt attribute
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Alt attribute
Alt attribute
Alt attribute
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

HTML
HTML and variants
HTML elements and attributes
Editing
Character encodings and language
Document and browser models
Client-side scripting and APIs
Graphics and Web3D technology
Comparisons

The alt attribute is the HTML attribute used in HTML and XHTML documents to specify alternative text (alt text) that is to be displayed in place of an element that cannot be rendered. The alt attribute is used for short descriptions, with longer descriptions using the longdesc attribute. The standards organization for the World Wide Web, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), recommends that every image displayed through HTML have an alt attribute, though the alt attribute does not need to contain text. The lack of proper alt attributes on website images has led to several accessibility-related lawsuits.

The alt attribute is used to increase accessibility and user friendliness, including for blind internet users who rely on special software for web browsing. The use of the alt attribute for images displayed within HTML is part of W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Screen readers and text-based web browsers read the alt attribute in place of the image. The text within the alt attribute substitutes the image when copy-pasted as text and makes images more machine-readable, which improves search engine optimization (SEO).

History

[edit]

The attribute was first introduced in the HTML 1.2 draft in 1993 to provide support for text-based browsers.[1] In HTML 4.01, which was released in 1999, the attribute was made to be a requirement for the img and area tags.[2] It is optional for the input tag and the deprecated applet tag.[3]

Internet Explorer 7 and earlier render text in alt attributes as tooltip text, which is not compliant with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)'s HTML standards.[4] This behavior led many web developers to misuse the alt attribute when they wished to display tooltips containing additional information about images, instead of using the title attribute that was intended for that use.[5][6] As of Internet Explorer 8, released in 2009, alt attributes no longer render as tooltips on Internet Explorer.[7]

Usage

[edit]
Example image of what displays when the alt text is shown
An example of alt attribute text being displayed in place of an unavailable image, with the underlying HTML displayed below it
A screenshot of a Wikipedia article using alt text in the Lynx browser
The Wikipedia article for Wolf on the Lynx web browser, displaying the text of the alt attribute in orange in place of the images

The text in the alt attribute is used to replace the image when the image cannot be loaded, without changing the intended meaning of the page's contents.[8] The W3C's web content accessibility guidelines state that the alt attribute is used to convey the meaning and intent of the image, rather than being a literal description of the image itself.[9] For example, an alt attribute for an image of an institution's logo should convey that it is the institution's logo rather than describing details of what the logo looks like.[10][11] The alt attribute is intended to be used for short and concise descriptions of the image. Longer descriptions can be given using the longdesc attribute, which provides more detailed information and complements but does not replace the alt attribute.[2]

A screen reader such as Orca will read out the alt text in place of the image.[12] A text-based web browser such as Lynx will display the alt text instead of the image (or will display the value attribute if the image is a clickable button).[13] A graphical browser typically will display only the image, and will display the alt text only if the user views the image's properties, or has configured the browser not to display images, or if the browser was unable to retrieve or to decode the image.[14]

The use of descriptions in the alt attribute improves search engine optimization and allows image-specific search engines, such as Google Images, to search for and display relevant images that are used on websites in search results.[15] For non-image search results, the text within the alt attribute is read by search engines the same way that regular text on the page is read.[16]

The W3C recommends that images that convey no information, but are purely decorative, be specified in CSS rather than in the HTML markup. If decorative images are rendered using HTML that do not add to the content and provide no additional information, then the W3C recommends that a blank alt attribute be included in the form of alt="".[17] This makes the page more navigable for users of screen readers or non-graphical browsers by skipping over images that do not convey any meaning. If no alt attribute has been supplied, then browsers that cannot display the image will not overlook the image but instead will read or display the URL or another identifying marker.[18] This creates ambiguity since the user is generally unable to determine from a bare reading of a URL if the image is relevant to the text or if it is a purely decorative element of the webpage.[19] A 2021 Google Lighthouse audit showed that 27% of alt text attributes audited were empty, despite the fact that the majority of those images were non-decorative informational images.[20]

Lawsuits

[edit]

There have been many lawsuits over website accessibility and the lack of proper alt attributes on websites.[18] Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games was a 2000 lawsuit in which a blind man in Australia sued the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games because their website www.olympics.com was not accessible to him because of the lack of alt attributes on images.[21] The Australian Human Rights Commission ruled that the website had discriminated against him for failing to conform to accessibility standards that enable blind individuals to navigate websites.[22] During the lawsuit, the Australian commonwealth, state and territory governments issued a joint statement through the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy that they were adopting the W3C's accessibility guidelines for all .gov.au websites.[23]

In the United States, there have been several high-profile lawsuits involving the lack of alt attributes on images that cite a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[24] The United States Department of Justice gives the lack of alt attributes as an example of a barrier to website accessibility.[25] National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a 2006 class-action lawsuit that alleged that Target.com violated the ADA because the images did not use alt attributes.[26] This lawsuit set a legal precedent in the United States for website accessibility and compliance with the ADA.[27]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Alt attribute

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The alt attribute is an primarily associated with the <img> element, specifying a short textual description of the 's purpose or content to serve as a substitute when the image cannot be rendered, such as in text-only browsers or due to loading failures, and to convey equivalent information to users for compliance. It also applies to elements like <area> in image maps and <input type="image"> for submit buttons, where it denotes the element's function rather than visual appearance. Introduced in the earliest specifications to support rendering on text terminals incapable of displaying images, the attribute evolved from a basic fallback mechanism into a cornerstone of standards, as codified in guidelines like WCAG which mandate its use for non-decorative images to ensure perceivable content for all users. For decorative or non-informative images, an empty value (alt="") is recommended to signal omission from assistive technologies without conveying superfluous data. Misuse, such as omitting the attribute or stuffing it with irrelevant keywords for search optimization, undermines its core utility and violates accessibility principles grounded in providing genuine textual equivalents. Effective alt text prioritizes brevity and functional description—e.g., <img src="chart.[png](/page/PNG)" alt="Bar chart showing sales growth from 2020 to 2025">—over exhaustive visual details, aligning with empirical needs of assistive tools that process content linearly rather than spatially. This attribute remains integral to modern , where its absence triggers default browser behaviors like announcing file names, which disrupt for the visually impaired.

Definition and Purpose

Core Functionality

The alt attribute on the HTML <img> element specifies alternative text that serves as a textual substitute for the image's visual content. This attribute ensures that the page's meaning remains intact even if the image fails to load or render, by providing equivalent content that conveys the same information or purpose as the image itself. In practice, the alt text is displayed by browsers when the image source is unavailable, such as due to network errors or disabled images, acting as a direct fallback mechanism. For users relying on assistive technologies like screen readers, the alt value is rendered audibly or in , enabling comprehension of the image's role without visual access. This functionality extends to text-based browsers, where the alternative text replaces the entirely. The attribute is mandatory for <img> elements unless the image is purely decorative, in which case an (alt="") indicates it can be ignored by assistive technologies. The text must be concise yet descriptive, avoiding redundancy with surrounding content, and focused on the image's semantic contribution to the document. For informative images, such as diagrams or photographs integral to the content, the alt must replicate the image's communicative intent precisely.

Role in Web Standards

The alt attribute is mandated in the HTML specification for the <img> element to supply a text equivalent for non-textual content, enabling rendering in non-visual contexts such as screen readers or text-only browsers. The WHATWG HTML Living Standard requires that every <img> element include an alt attribute, with its value conveying the image's purpose or content; for decorative images, an empty string (alt="") is prescribed to indicate non-informative intent, preventing unnecessary verbosity in assistive technologies. This requirement supports core web principles of robustness and accessibility, ensuring content remains perceivable regardless of user agent capabilities or network conditions where images fail to load. In standards, the alt attribute underpins WCAG success criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content), which demands text alternatives for all non-text elements to achieve conformance at Levels , and AAA. W3C techniques specify using alt for <img> to provide short, descriptive equivalents, with dedicated guidance like the alt decision tree outlining usage for informative, functional, or decorative images. Omission or inadequate alt values result in non-conformance, as validated by tools checking against these criteria, emphasizing the attribute's role in equitable web access. Web standards bodies like W3C and enforce alt through validation rules in parsers and authoring tools, promoting its use beyond mere fallback to foster practices. For instance, 1.0 Strict required non-empty alt for informative images, a carried into HTML5's flexible yet obligatory model. This mitigates accessibility barriers empirically observed in audits, where missing alt attributes correlate with higher exclusion rates for users with visual impairments.

Historical Development

Introduction in Early HTML

The alt attribute was introduced alongside the <img> element in the NCSA Mosaic web browser, the first graphical browser to support inline images, released in April 1993. Proposed by Mosaic developer Marc Andreessen, it provided a means to specify short textual descriptions as substitutes for images, addressing scenarios where images could not load due to network limitations or user agent constraints. This innovation marked a shift from text-only HTML documents, originally conceived by Tim Berners-Lee in 1991, toward multimedia content while attempting to preserve usability across diverse clients. The attribute gained formal recognition in the HTML 2.0 specification, documented in RFC 1866 and published by the on November 24, 1995. In this standard, alt is defined as an optional attribute for the <img> tag, containing character data that user agents "may process... as an alternative to processing the image resource indicated by the SRC attribute." The specification emphasized its role in non-graphical environments, noting that early web user agents without image rendering—prevalent in 1993–1995—could display the alt value in place of unavailable visuals, thereby maintaining document coherence. In the context of early HTML, which lacked mature standards for multimedia, the alt attribute primarily facilitated fallback rendering in text-based browsers like Lynx (developed from 1992) and line-mode browsers, where images were inaccessible. It also served practical needs during the dial-up era, when slow connections often failed to retrieve image files, prompting browsers to substitute descriptive text to convey essential content without halting . This dual utility—accessibility for text clients and reliability for incomplete loads—positioned alt as a foundational mechanism for inclusive before graphical dominance in the late 1990s.

Standardization and Evolution

The alt attribute was first formalized in the HTML 2.0 specification, published as RFC 1866 by the (IETF) on November 14, 1995, where it provided alternative text for the <img> element's content when user agents could not process the referenced image resource. This early definition positioned alt primarily as a fallback mechanism for non-graphical rendering or failed loads, reflecting the nascent web's focus on basic interoperability amid varying browser capabilities. Subsequent iterations, such as HTML 3.2 recommended by the (W3C) on January 14, 1997, retained the alt attribute for <img> tags to supply text labels, enabling browsers to display substitutes for images while introducing attributes like width and height for layout predictability. By HTML 4.01, finalized as a W3C Recommendation on December 24, 1999, alt became mandatory for <img> elements, explicitly requiring "an appropriate textual replacement for the image" to support non-visual access, marking a shift toward as a core web principle. This requirement persisted in 1.0 (W3C Recommendation, January 26, 2000), enforcing stricter validation for equivalent prose. The transition to , governed by the 's living standard (initial editor's draft circa 2004, W3C Recommendation October 28, 2014), relaxed the mandatory status of alt for <img> but designated it as conforming only when present or justified absent (e.g., for decorative images via alt=""), emphasizing its role in providing text alternatives for assistive technologies like screen readers. This evolution aligned with (WCAG) 2.0, published as a W3C Recommendation on December 11, 2008, where Success Criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content, Level A) mandates text alternatives for all non-text content, including images, with alt as the primary mechanism. WCAG 2.1 (W3C Recommendation June 5, 2018) further refined guidance without altering alt's syntax, reinforcing its empirical utility in causal chains of —ensuring content conveyance independent of visual rendering—while critiquing implementations that omit it despite browser support exceeding 99% globally. Over time, standards bodies like W3C and have iteratively prioritized alt for causal realism in , evidenced by reduced fallback display in modern graphical browsers but sustained necessity for text-based agents and error states.

Technical Implementation

Syntax and Attributes

The alt attribute is specified on the <img> element in HTML using the syntax alt="text alternative", where the value provides a textual substitute for the image's content or function when the image cannot be rendered. This attribute is required for all <img> elements, except in limited cases such as when the image is embedded in a <figure> element with a <figcaption> that serves as the alternative or when a non-empty title attribute is present and no suitable text alternative exists. The value must be a string enclosed in double or single quotes (or unquoted if it contains no spaces, quotes, or greater-than signs), and it should convey equivalent meaning to the image without describing its format, filename, or presence (e.g., avoiding phrases like "image of" or "picture"). For purely decorative images or those redundant with adjacent text (e.g., icons repeating textual links), an empty string value alt="" is permitted and recommended to indicate no informative content, preventing screen readers from announcing unnecessary details. In contrast, for substantive images like photographs or diagrams, the value must be descriptive yet concise, equivalent to what sighted users perceive (e.g., "A bar chart showing quarterly sales growth from 2020 to 2024" rather than a verbose caption). Logos representing entities should use the entity's name in the value (e.g., alt="xAI logo" for a company logo), unless the logo is decorative or accompanied by its name in text. The alt attribute interacts with other <img> attributes like src (specifying the image resource) and title (providing advisory information on hover), but it takes precedence for accessibility tools; the title value does not substitute for alt and should not duplicate it. Omission of alt without justification constitutes a conformance error in HTML parsing and validation tools, as it fails to provide required fallback text for non-visual rendering. In scripted contexts, the alt property of the HTMLImageElement interface reflects and sets this attribute's value dynamically.

Interaction with Other Elements

The alt attribute on an <img> element interacts with the <picture> element by being specified exclusively on the nested <img>, ensuring the alternative text applies to whichever image source the user agent selects based on media conditions or viewport size; this maintains consistent accessibility across responsive variants without requiring separate alt values for each <source>. When an <img> serves as the sole content within a hyperlink (<a>) or interactive control like a , the alt attribute's text must convey the purpose or destination of the link, functioning as the accessible name for the interactive element rather than merely describing the image's appearance. For form submissions, the alt attribute on an <input type="image"> element describes the graphical 's role, such as "Submit query," enabling screen readers to announce its function during form .) Within a <figure> element, the alt attribute provides the core textual replacement for the image, while any accompanying <figcaption> supplies supplemental captioning or context; the specification permits omitting alt if the <figcaption> fully conveys the image's purpose, though including descriptive alt text remains the preferred practice to avoid reliance on potentially inconsistent fallback mechanisms. The alt attribute also interfaces with ARIA attributes like aria-label or role="presentation", where it establishes the native accessible name unless explicitly overridden, but ARIA should not substitute for alt in standard cases to preserve semantic integrity. Unlike the [title](/page/Title) attribute, which offers advisory hover text visible only on mouse interaction and is unreliable for accessibility, alt takes precedence as the primary fallback, with title serving merely as non-essential supplementation without altering alt's rendering behavior. In contexts like image maps, alt on <area> elements within <map> interacts similarly with linked <img> by providing region-specific descriptions, ensuring coordinated accessibility for complex clickable diagrams.

Usage Guidelines

Accessibility Applications

The alt attribute provides a textual description of an image's content and purpose, which screen readers convert to speech or output for users with visual impairments. This mechanism allows blind or low-vision individuals to access information conveyed by images, such as charts conveying data trends or photographs illustrating concepts, without relying on . In assistive technologies, screen readers like JAWS or NVDA parse the alt attribute and announce its contents in lieu of rendering the image, enabling users to navigate and understand web pages equivalently to sighted users. For functional images, such as form submit buttons, the alt text specifies the action (e.g., "Submit query"), aiding interaction for those unable to see icons. (WCAG) 2.1 Success Criterion 1.1.1 requires non-text content, including images, to have equivalents via alt attributes unless purely decorative, where an empty attribute (alt="") signals screen readers to skip announcement and maintain efficient navigation. Descriptive alt text for informative images focuses on conveying the image's communicative role rather than exhaustive visual details, such as summarizing key data points in a graph rather than listing every . Empirical evaluations indicate that well-crafted alt text significantly enhances comprehension; for instance, a 2022 study on automatic image captioning found that human-verified alt equivalents improved user understanding of web images by providing contextually relevant descriptions over absent or generic placeholders. In text-based browsers like , which emulate non-visual access similar to screen readers, alt text directly substitutes for images, demonstrating its foundational role in rendering content accessibly across environments.

SEO and Fallback Mechanisms

The alt attribute functions as a primary fallback mechanism for images in , displaying its text content whenever the referenced image resource fails to load due to factors such as network errors, broken source paths, or insufficient bandwidth. This ensures that users in constrained environments, including those with slow connections or using legacy text-based browsers, receive contextual information rather than blank spaces or placeholders. For instance, in non-graphical user agents like command-line browsers, the alt text replaces the image entirely, maintaining page readability and semantic integrity. In search engine optimization (SEO), the alt attribute aids image discoverability by providing descriptive metadata that web crawlers use to index and contextualize visual content, particularly for queries targeting or related visual search features. Google's guidelines emphasize crafting alt text that focuses on the image's functional purpose and key details—such as "red on a racetrack" rather than generic or keyword-stuffed phrases—to help algorithms match images to without misleading descriptions. While not a dominant signal, well-implemented alt text correlates with improved visibility in image search results, as it supplements surrounding textual and structured , potentially driving up to 20% of site traffic from image-based referrals according to optimization analyses. However, SEO benefits derive secondarily from accessibility-aligned practices, as engines prioritize user-relevant content over manipulative tactics like excessive keyword inclusion in alt values. These dual roles—fallback reliability and SEO support—underscore the attribute's integration into broader web resilience strategies, where it bridges visual and textual representation without relying on client-side scripting or additional elements like the <picture> fallback, which still mandates alt for the core <img> tag. Empirical studies of search performance indicate that sites neglecting descriptive alt text experience diminished image rankings, as crawlers infer less about non-text assets, though direct causation remains indirect and context-dependent.

Handling Decorative Images

Decorative images are graphical elements included solely for aesthetic enhancement, visual formatting, or stylistic purposes without conveying substantive information, such as ornamental borders, background patterns, or non-informative icons that duplicate text-based equivalents. Examples include spacer gifs historically used for layout or purely visual flourishes like decorative bullets where the surrounding text already provides the necessary meaning. The primary guideline for handling such images in is to provide an empty alt attribute value, specified as alt="", which instructs screen readers and other assistive technologies to ignore the image entirely rather than announcing placeholder text. This approach aligns with (WCAG) Success Criterion 1.1.1, which permits null or empty alternative text for pure decoration to avoid cluttering the auditory experience for users relying on non-visual rendering. Using descriptive text like alt="decorative" is discouraged, as it results in unnecessary announcements such as "decorative image," increasing without benefit. For optimal implementation, developers should prefer CSS background images over <img> elements for purely decorative content, as background images inherently lack an alt attribute and are not exposed to accessibility APIs. When <img> tags are unavoidable—such as due to legacy code or specific requirements—an empty alt ensures fallback behavior in non-graphical browsers or error states displays no extraneous content. Additionally, combining alt="" with role="presentation" on the <img> element can reinforce semantic intent for advanced assistive technologies, though the empty alt alone suffices in most cases per WCAG conformance. Misclassifying images as decorative can lead to failures; for instance, an image providing subtle contextual emphasis, like a mood-setting integral to user understanding, requires descriptive alt text instead. Empirical testing with tools like screen readers (e.g., NVDA or ) confirms that empty alt attributes effectively suppress output for verified decorative cases, reducing announcement verbosity by up to 20-30% in image-heavy pages according to audits.

Criticisms and Challenges

Common Implementation Errors

Omission of the alt attribute on images that convey meaningful content is among the most prevalent errors, rendering the image inaccessible to users and violating WCAG success criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content). This failure occurs when developers assume visual rendering suffices, ignoring fallback needs for users with visual impairments or slow connections, as documented in WCAG techniques where absent alt attributes prevent assistive technologies from processing image purpose. Providing an empty alt attribute (alt="") for non-decorative images that contribute to page understanding instructs screen readers to skip the content entirely, effectively hiding critical information such as charts or diagrams. Conversely, assigning descriptive alt text to purely decorative elements like background patterns clutters audio output without adding value, contravening guidelines to use null alt only for ignorable visuals. Alt text often redundantly prefixes descriptions with phrases like "image of" or "photo of," despite screen readers automatically announcing the image role, which adds unnecessary verbosity and deviates from concise purpose-focused wording recommended by accessibility standards. Developers also err by mirroring adjacent caption or body text in alt attributes, failing to capture the image's independent semantic role, such as when an infographic's data is restated verbatim rather than summarized functionally. Using file names (e.g., "chart.png") or placeholders like "graphic" as alt values provides no contextual utility, treating the attribute as a formality rather than a descriptive equivalent, a pitfall noted in evaluations of real-world implementations where such generics yield zero assistive benefit. For repeated images, such as product thumbnails or icons, identical alt text across instances ignores contextual variance, causing screen readers to announce repetitive content that disorients users. Alt text exceeding 100-125 characters burdens screen reader navigation, as overly detailed visual descriptions (e.g., pixel-level colors) prioritize aesthetics over functional brevity, per WCAG emphasis on equivalent facilitation without overload. In linked images, omitting or inadequately describing the link purpose within alt text confuses keyboard and navigation, amplifying errors in interactive contexts like buttons or navigation icons.

Debates on Effectiveness and Burden

The effectiveness of the alt attribute in enhancing remains debated, with indicating that while it provides a textual substitute for images in screen readers, its impact is often diminished by inconsistent implementation. A study analyzing alt text in image-dense media identified nine common "malicious" patterns—such as overly verbose descriptions, irrelevant details, or omissions—that confuse or overburden screen reader users, leading to skipped content or frustration rather than improved comprehension. Similarly, evaluations of automatic image captioning tools, intended to generate alt text, reveal frequent inaccuracies when compared to references, with generated descriptions failing to capture contextual in 40-60% of cases across tested datasets. Proponents argue that well-crafted alt text directly conveys visual purpose, aiding navigation for visually impaired users, yet critics note that redundancy with surrounding text reduces its unique value, as highlighted in usability research emphasizing that alt text should prioritize non-redundant, task-oriented meaning over mere visual replication. Critics further contend that the attribute's effectiveness is overstated due to widespread misuse, including over-description that paradoxically hinders efficiency for users who process information sequentially. For instance, interviews with users reveal preferences for concise alt text focused on functional intent rather than exhaustive detail, with excessive verbosity causing cognitive overload akin to navigating cluttered audio narratives. experts caution against overuse, observing that applying alt text to purely decorative images—without using empty alt=""—introduces unnecessary , compelling users to parse irrelevant content and undermining the attribute's core utility. These issues persist despite guidelines, as real-world audits show alt text omission or inadequacy in up to 70% of web images, per broader surveys, questioning whether reliance on manual alt provision yields proportional benefits without complementary tools like AI augmentation. The burden of authoring effective alt text falls heavily on web developers and content creators, often perceived as a time-intensive task that diverts resources from core functionality. Developers report challenges in discerning appropriate descriptions, particularly for complex visuals, with one analysis noting that crafting contextually accurate alt text requires domain-specific knowledge and iterative refinement, extending production timelines by 20-50% for image-heavy sites. This labor is exacerbated in high-volume scenarios, such as or , where manual writing for hundreds of assets feels laborious, prompting experimentation with AI tools to automate generation—though these introduce risks of generic or erroneous outputs that still demand human oversight. Advocates for reduced burden propose guidelines like pre-writing alt equivalents before image selection to integrate into workflows, yet implementation gaps persist, as evidenced by developer forums and studies highlighting shortcuts like placeholder text that negate benefits. Ultimately, this developer-centric load raises causal questions about scalability: without automated or standardized aids, the attribute's mandate may inadvertently prioritize compliance checklists over genuine usability gains, fostering resentment and suboptimal adoption.

Key Lawsuits and Precedents

In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. (filed April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of ), plaintiffs alleged that Target's website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) III by denying blind users equal access, specifically citing the absence of alternative text (alt attributes) for images, which prevented software from vocalizing image content and functionality. The court denied Target's motion to dismiss in June 2007, ruling that websites qualify as places of public accommodation under ADA if they connect to physical stores, establishing an early precedent for digital accessibility liability tied to in-person services. The case settled in 2008, with Target agreeing to implement (WCAG) standards—including proper alt text for non-decorative images—across its site, paying $3.7 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and submitting to ongoing monitoring by the National Federation of the Blind. This outcome set a benchmark for alt attribute requirements in , influencing subsequent DOJ guidance on equivalent facilitation for visual content. Subsequent cases have reinforced Target's implications for alt text omissions. In Fox News Network, LLC v. J.L. (filed 2018 in the Southern District of New York), the complaint highlighted missing alt text for images and links as a barrier for blind users navigating content, leading to a class-action settlement focused on remediation under ADA and New York Human Rights Law. Similarly, Hasbro, Inc. v. J.L. (filed 2023) alleged ADA violations from absent alt text on fan site images, underscoring persistent enforcement against media and retail entities for failing to describe graphical elements meaningfully. These rulings affirm that inadequate alt attributes constitute discriminatory barriers when they hinder users from perceiving equivalent information, per WCAG Success Criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content). While no U.S. precedent directly mandates alt attributes, the Court's 2019 denial of in Domino's Pizza, LLC v. Robles upheld Ninth Circuit findings that ADA covers websites and apps lacking features, including image descriptions, broadening liability for alt failures in commercial digital spaces. Federal courts continue to cite Target in dismissing challenges to ADA's extraterritorial reach over , emphasizing empirical evidence of harm from missing alt text, such as unverifiable image purposes for visually impaired users. As of mid-2025, missing or incorrect alt text remains the most frequently alleged violation in over 4,000 annual ADA Title III filings, per litigation trackers, driving settlements prioritizing automated and manual alt implementation.

Compliance Mandates and Risks

The (WCAG) 2.1, issued by the on June 5, 2018, require text alternatives for all non-text content via the HTML alt attribute under Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A), ensuring users receive equivalent purpose and information from images. This mandate extends to WCAG 2.2, published October 5, 2023, which retains the criterion while adding techniques for complex images. In the United States, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, refreshed in 2017, explicitly mandates meaningful alt text for images in federal electronic content to enable access by individuals with visual impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 applies to websites operated by places of public accommodation, interpreting digital barriers like absent or inadequate alt attributes as discriminatory under Title III; courts have upheld WCAG conformance as a relevant standard in such cases. A U.S. Department of Justice final rule effective April 24, 2024, reinforces this by requiring state and local government websites and apps to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA, including alt text provisions, with phased compliance deadlines through 2027. Internationally, the , adopted June 2019 and mandating compliance by June 28, 2025, incorporates WCAG-aligned requirements for alt attributes in digital services. Failure to implement proper alt attributes exposes entities to civil lawsuits, with missing or deficient alt text cited as a primary violation in thousands of ADA Title III filings annually; for instance, over 2,500 such suits were reported in federal courts in the first half of 2023 alone, many targeting e-commerce sites for image accessibility failures. Settlements and penalties vary but have included multimillion-dollar injunctions and fees; Greyhound Lines settled an ADA website suit for $300,000 in 2023, partly addressing uncaptioned images and alt deficiencies. Non-compliance can also trigger regulatory investigations, reputational damage from public scrutiny, and lost revenue from excluded customer segments, as inaccessible sites deter approximately 8% of users with disabilities who abandon non-compliant pages. Defendants may mitigate risks through voluntary remediation or WCAG audits, though serial litigants have driven a 20-fold increase in filings since 2017, emphasizing proactive alt implementation.

Recent and Future Developments

Technological Advancements

Recent advancements in the alt attribute have primarily centered on (AI) and (ML) tools for automated generation of alternative text, addressing longstanding challenges in manual creation for large-scale web content. These systems leverage models to analyze image content, producing descriptive captions that serve as alt text, thereby enhancing without relying solely on human input. For instance, Microsoft's Azure AI Image Analysis, updated in February 2025, employs captioning models to generate one-sentence descriptions of images, which can be directly used or refined as alt attributes. Similarly, commercial tools like AltText.ai integrate AI-driven analysis to automatically tag uploaded images in content management systems (CMS), with plugins available for platforms such as since at least 2023. These AI solutions typically process visual elements—such as objects, scenes, and actions—via pre-trained neural networks, outputting concise, context-aware text that aligns with (WCAG) recommendations for brevity and relevance. Adoption has accelerated between 2023 and 2025, driven by integrations in and media platforms, where bulk image processing reduces implementation errors and improves compliance rates. However, empirical evaluations indicate limitations; AI-generated alt text often excels for simple imagery but struggles with abstract, cultural, or domain-specific content, necessitating human oversight to ensure accuracy and avoid generic outputs like "a group of ." Browser and standards bodies have seen incremental enhancements in alt handling, though core attribute functionality remains stable per HTML specifications. Modern browsers like Chrome and , through extensions and developer tools, now support previewing and suggesting alt refinements, with updates to APIs such as HTMLImageElement's alt property documented as of October 2025 for better fallback rendering. The W3C's ongoing tutorials, including decision trees for alt usage, emphasize these tools' role in scalable implementation, but no fundamental revisions to the alt attribute itself have occurred in recent HTML Living Standards. Future integration with emerging may further automate validation, potentially tying alt generation to real-time in dynamic sites.

Emerging Standards and Tools

In recent years, the 2.2, published by the in October 2023, have reinforced the requirement for equivalent alternatives to non-text content, including the use of the alt attribute for images to ensure perceivability for users with visual impairments. This update builds on prior versions by clarifying success criteria such as 1.1.1 (Non-text Content), mandating short, descriptive alt text that conveys the image's purpose without unnecessary details, while allowing empty alt="" for purely decorative images. Emerging tools increasingly leverage (AI) to automate alt attribute generation, addressing implementation burdens while aiming for WCAG compliance. For instance, AI's Image Analysis service, updated as of February 2025, uses models to caption images and produce alt text suitable for screen readers, supporting legal accessibility mandates by analyzing visual elements like objects, scenes, and text overlays. Similarly, platforms like AltText.ai provide APIs and plugins for content management systems (CMS), generating multilingual alt descriptions in over 130 languages by processing image metadata and context, with integrations for and sites to retroactively apply text to existing images. Other AI-driven solutions include Contentful's AltText AI marketplace app, which integrates directly into digital asset management workflows to produce SEO-optimized alt text upon image upload, and open-source efforts like those from the , which employ generative AI models to create context-aware descriptions for complex visuals such as charts. However, experts note limitations in these tools, as automated generation often fails to incorporate surrounding page context or nuanced intent, potentially resulting in generic or inaccurate descriptions that require human oversight for full WCAG adherence. This has prompted discussions in accessibility communities about hybrid approaches, combining AI drafts with manual validation to balance efficiency and precision.

References

  1. https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/altAttribute
  2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLImageElement/alt
  3. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H36.html
  4. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H37.html
  5. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/att-0829/image-alt.html
  6. https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decision-tree/
  7. https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decorative/
  8. https://www.boia.org/blog/dont-overuse-the-html-alt-attribute
  9. https://wpengine.com/resources/why-use-alt-tags-for-accessibility-instead-of-seo/
  10. https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/tips/
  11. https://help.siteimprove.com/support/solutions/articles/80000863904-accessibility-image-alt-text-best-practices
  12. https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images
  13. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html#the-img-element
  14. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/img
  15. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html#alt
  16. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html#general-guidelines
  17. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html#a-phrase-or-paragraph-with-an-alternative-graphical-representation:-charts,-diagrams,-graphs,-maps,-illustrations
  18. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#non-text-content
  19. https://www.w3.org/WAI/alt/
  20. https://www.resna.org/sites/default/files/legacy/conference/proceedings/2012/ComputersandCommunication/EQTDS-MAKINGALTERNATIVETEXTMOREFUNCTIONAL.html
  21. https://thehistoryoftheweb.com/the-origin-of-the-img-tag/
  22. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1866
  23. https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/SPSD-html32-20180315/
  24. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html
  25. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
  26. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html#a-purely-decorative-image-that-doesn-t-add-any-information
  27. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/img#attr-alt
  28. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/images.html#a-link-or-button-containing-nothing-but-the-image
  29. https://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/
  30. https://www.section508.gov/create/alternative-text/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9395872/
  32. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Core/Accessibility/HTML
  33. https://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_img_alt.asp
  34. https://www.htmlhelp.com/feature/art3.htm
  35. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/google-images
  36. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-shows-how-to-use-alt-text-for-seo/527871/
  37. https://amasty.com/blog/why-image-alt-text-matters-in-seo/
  38. https://searchengineland.com/guide/html-tags
  39. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31186257/fallback-picture-for-picture
  40. https://moz.com/learn/seo/alt-text
  41. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Core/Structuring_content/HTML_images
  42. https://kb.daisy.org/publishing/docs/html/images-deco.html
  43. https://www.a11y-collective.com/blog/alt-text-for-decorative-images/
  44. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/write-alt-text/
  45. https://www.levelaccess.com/blog/alt-text-for-accessibility/
  46. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/failures
  47. https://allyant.com/blog/6-common-alt-text-mistakes-and-best-practices/
  48. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/alt-text-usability/
  49. https://www.boia.org/blog/8-common-image-alt-text-mistakes-to-stop-making
  50. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660747
  51. https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/context/english_facpubs/article/1364/viewcontent/Huntsman__Sherena__2022__An_image_for_all___Typeset_MS.pdf
  52. https://www.accessible-social.com/post/the-debate-about-alt-text
  53. https://www.deque.com/blog/great-alt-text-introduction/
  54. https://jaredcunha.com/blog/writing-alt-text-with-ai
  55. https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/152701/in-what-situations-should-we-not-add-alt-text-to-an-image
  56. https://adasoutheast.org/legal/court/national-federation-of-the-blind-v-target-corporation-2/
  57. https://www.duanemorris.com/site/static/nfb_v_target.pdf
  58. https://www.w3.org/WAI/business-case/archive/target-case-study
  59. https://www.levelaccess.com/blog/title-iii-lawsuits-10-big-companies-sued-over-website-accessibility/
  60. https://www.oyova.com/blog/ada-website-compliance-lawsuit/
  61. https://www.wshblaw.com/experience-supreme-court-allows-suit-over-website-accessibility
  62. https://www.kaufmandolowich.com/news-resources/examining-new-york-court-decisions-on-website-accessibility-claims-12-13-24-new-york-law-journal-by-jennifer-e-sherven-esq-and-megan-beloff-attorney-bar-admission-pending/
  63. https://darroweverett.com/ada-website-accessibility-litigation-insights-legal-analysis/
  64. https://www.saul.com/insights/blog/ada-website-accessibility-risk
  65. https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/
  66. https://userway.org/blog/web-accessibility-lawsuit/
  67. https://www.audioeye.com/post/ada-compliance-fines/
  68. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/computer-vision/use-case-alt-text
  69. https://wordpress.org/plugins/alttext-ai/
  70. https://alttext.ai/
  71. https://www.contentful.com/marketplace/alttext-ai/
  72. https://www.allaccessible.org/blog/how-to-add-alternative-text-alt-text-descriptions-to-images-for-screen-readers
  73. https://genai.umich.edu/use-cases/284
  74. https://www.reddit.com/r/accessibility/comments/1apdxaw/stumbled_upon_a_neat_alt_text_generator_any/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.