How to Check Images Have Alt Text | EnlightenIT

Missing alternative text is easy to overlook because the image still appears perfectly normal to many visitors. The problem becomes visible when somebody cannot see the image, when an image fails to load or when you audit how clearly a page communicates without relying on visual content alone. Checking alt text is therefore an accessibility task first, with useful implications for image understanding and SEO where the description is relevant.

Know what you are checking for

In HTML, an image can include an alt attribute containing alternative text. The important distinction is between an image with useful alt text, an intentionally empty alt attribute and an image where the attribute is missing altogether. These situations are not equivalent.

Informative images generally need text that communicates their relevant purpose or content. Purely decorative images may appropriately use an empty alt attribute so assistive technology can ignore them. The audit should therefore ask whether each image has the right treatment, not simply whether every alt field contains words.

Inspect an individual image in the browser

For a quick check, open the page in a desktop browser and inspect the image element using the browser's developer tools. Locate the image in the HTML and look for its alt attribute. If it contains text, read that text and decide whether it makes sense in the context of the page.

This method is useful for investigating a specific image or confirming what a content management system actually outputs. It is less practical for reviewing hundreds of images, where a crawler or accessibility auditing tool can identify patterns much faster.

Check the CMS without assuming the field is correct

Many content management systems provide an alternative-text field in the media library or page editor. Reviewing that field is convenient, but the live page remains the final check. A theme, plugin or custom component may output the image differently from what the editor suggests.

Also be wary of inherited descriptions. An image reused in different contexts may need a different treatment depending on the information it contributes. A media-library label written years ago is not automatically suitable alt text for every page where the asset appears.

Use a crawl for a site-wide review

SEO and accessibility tools can crawl a website and report images with missing or empty alt attributes. This is valuable for finding scale problems, such as a template that omits alt text across an entire content type. Exporting the affected URLs can give an owner or agency a manageable remediation list.

Automated reports still need human judgement. A tool may flag an empty alt attribute even where the image is decorative and emptiness is intentional. Conversely, an image can pass an automated check because an alt value exists even though the description is useless.

Judge the text in its surrounding context

Good alt text communicates what matters about the image in that particular context. If nearby copy already provides the same information, repeating a long description may add noise. If the image contains essential information not otherwise available, the alternative needs to convey that function appropriately.

Avoid turning alt text into a list of SEO phrases. Describing an image accurately may naturally include relevant terminology, but keyword stuffing makes the alternative less useful. The objective is equivalent understanding, not another hidden place to repeat a target term.

Handle functional images differently

An image can be a control rather than ordinary content. A linked logo, icon button or image used to trigger an action needs an accessible purpose that reflects what happens when it is activated. Describing only the visual appearance may fail to explain the function.

This is one reason a simple missing-alt report cannot complete the audit for you. The correct alternative depends on whether the image informs, decorates or performs an action.

Fix the source of repeated problems

If an audit reveals dozens of similar omissions, investigate the template or publishing workflow before editing each page individually. A card component may fail to output stored alt text, or editors may not be prompted to consider an image's purpose when uploading it.

Fixing the system prevents the same defect returning. Agencies should also document how editors are expected to handle informative and decorative imagery so accessibility does not depend on one person's memory.

Recheck after the change

After corrections, inspect a sample of live pages and rerun the relevant audit. Check desktop and mobile templates where they differ. The goal is to confirm both technical output and editorial quality.

Alt text is a small field with a specific job. A useful audit distinguishes missing markup from intentional emptiness, checks whether descriptions serve the image's purpose and fixes recurring causes at their source. That approach improves the site for people first while giving search systems clearer information where images contribute meaning.

Build an image-alt workflow around purpose

A useful editorial workflow starts before anyone writes an alt attribute. Ask what job the image performs on the page. If it conveys information that is not otherwise available, the text alternative needs to communicate that information. If it is a decorative flourish beside text that already carries the meaning, treating it as decorative may be more appropriate than inventing a redundant description.

This matters on commercial pages because images often have different jobs: a product photograph shows appearance, a diagram explains a process, a logo identifies an organisation and an icon may simply decorate a button whose accessible name already comes from text. One formula cannot describe all four well.

Audit the CMS rather than only the rendered page

For a small agency managing many pages, repeated failures often originate in the content system. Editors may be able to upload an image without an alt field, a theme may reuse one media-library description in several contexts, or a page builder may generate decorative images with unnecessary text alternatives. Sample the rendered HTML, but also identify where editors actually enter and reuse image data.

A practical remediation list can separate missing alternatives on meaningful images, obviously inappropriate keyword-filled text, decorative assets and images that need contextual review. That is more useful than treating every empty alt attribute as the same defect.

Alt text should be treated first as an accessibility decision, not as a place to insert search phrases. The useful test is whether somebody who cannot see the image would lose information needed to understand or operate the page.

Context changes the answer. The same photograph might need a concise description in a product gallery, add nothing beside an identical written description, or require different wording when used to illustrate a specific feature. This is why bulk-generating alt text from filenames or a fixed template can create plausible-looking but poor accessibility.

For an agency or owner, the scalable improvement is governance: define which image types need editorial review, make the CMS field available at upload or placement time, and include representative images in release QA. That prevents the issue returning every time new content is published.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should every image have descriptive alt text?

No. Images that convey meaningful information generally need an appropriate text alternative, while purely decorative images may be handled so assistive technology can ignore them. The correct treatment depends on the image's purpose and context.

Should keywords be added to alt text for SEO?

Do not add phrases merely to target keywords. Describe the useful information or function of the image where a text alternative is needed, using wording that makes sense in the surrounding content.

Why can bulk-generated alt text be risky?

Automated text may miss the image's purpose on a particular page, repeat information already present or describe decorative assets unnecessarily. Sample and review generated output before relying on it at scale.