Finding reference

Text alternative accessibility issue

Retained automated accessibility evidence showed non-text content, images, SVGs, icons, or media-related elements with text-alternative signals that may require accessibility review. Review the evidence context, methodology, common causes, and reviewer questions for this CertScore finding.

Selected finding

Text alternative accessibility issue

MediumGood evidenceDirect observationAccessibilitySeen on ~10% of scanned top sites

Benchmark frequency is directional market context only. It is not a compliance benchmark, legal conclusion, or severity score. Rare findings may be top-ranked only when retained evidence is strong; common findings may remain medium when evidence is automated or context-dependent. Rarity is not severity, and prevalence is not compliance risk.

Observed

Retained automated accessibility evidence showed non-text content, images, SVGs, icons, or media-related elements with text-alternative signals that may require accessibility review.

Why this matters

Text alternatives help screen reader, voice control, low-bandwidth, image-blocking, and cognitive-accessibility users understand meaningful non-text content. For review teams, the signal can help identify where informative images, icons, controls, or media may need appropriate alternative text or where decorative content may need to be hidden from assistive technologies.

Detection methodology

CertScore retains representative automated accessibility evidence for text-alternative checks, including the rule identifier, affected selector or element reference, page URL, impact label when available, and WCAG-oriented references. The finding is surfaced when retained evidence indicates that non-text content, images, SVGs, icons, controls, or media-related elements may lack an appropriate text alternative or may require review to determine whether the content is informative, functional, decorative, redundant, or exempt. CertScore treats automated text-alternative results as review signals. The scanner does not infer full WCAG conformance or non-conformance from a single automated rule result. Reviewers should consider the element purpose, surrounding text, whether the content is decorative or informative, whether an icon acts as a control, whether an image contains text, and whether the retained evidence reflects the user-visible and assistive-technology-relevant context.

Confidence semantics: Good when representative automated text-alternative evidence includes rule ID, selector or element reference, page context, impact label, and WCAG-oriented references; stronger when retained evidence also includes element purpose context, accessible-name context, repeated examples across templates, or enough detail for manual verification. Manual review is still needed for decorative status, informative purpose, surrounding context, and remediation quality.

Top-finding calibrationWhat must be retained to surface, top-rank, demote, or suppress this finding.

Minimum to surface

Automated alt/text alternative rule with selector, page, and WCAG reference.

High confidence requires

Element purpose context.
Accessible-name context.

Top ranking requires

Functional control.
Important chart or graphic.
Repeated CMS/template issue.

Demote or suppress when

Decorative, redundant, or logo context without manual review.

These rules describe ranking calibration for already-projected findings. They do not create findings from raw signals.

Example evidence

Text alternative example

rule=image-alt
artifact=alt_001
role=finding_supporting_artifact
url=https://example.com/features
selector=[data-example-component="feature-card"] img
impact=critical
wcag_refs=1.1.1 Non-text Content
element_type=image
detected_signal=missing_text_alternative
purpose_context=manual_review_recommended
review_caveat=manual review should confirm whether the image is informative, functional, decorative, redundant, or covered by surrounding text

Review context

component=feature_card
possible_source=image_component_or_cms_content
contexts_to_review=informative, decorative, functional, redundant, logo, image_of_text
assistive_technology_review_needed=true
manual_review_needed=true

What should not count by itself

filename=hero-image.png [audit_only_without_affected_element]
selector=img.hero [insufficient_without_rule_and_page_context]
empty_alt_on_decorative_image [requires_decorative_status_review]
brand_logo_without_alt [requires_logo/context_review]

View redacted sample JSON

Redacted sample JSON

{
  "findingId": "text_alternative_accessibility_issue",
  "label": "Text alternative accessibility issue",
  "category": "Accessibility",
  "criticality": "medium",
  "evidenceConfidence": "good",
  "directVsInferred": "direct_observation",
  "evidence": {
    "summary": "Retained automated accessibility evidence showed non-text content, images, SVGs, icons, or media-related elements with text-alternative signals that may require accessibility review.",
    "examples": [
      {
        "title": "Text alternative example",
        "lines": [
          "rule=image-alt",
          "artifact=alt_001",
          "role=finding_supporting_artifact",
          "url=https://example.com/features",
          "selector=[data-example-component=\"feature-card\"] img",
          "impact=critical",
          "wcag_refs=1.1.1 Non-text Content",
          "element_type=image",
          "detected_signal=missing_text_alternative",
          "purpose_context=manual_review_recommended",
          "review_caveat=manual review should confirm whether the image is informative, functional, decorative, redundant, or covered by surrounding text"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Review context",
        "lines": [
          "component=feature_card",
          "possible_source=image_component_or_cms_content",
          "contexts_to_review=informative, decorative, functional, redundant, logo, image_of_text",
          "assistive_technology_review_needed=true",
          "manual_review_needed=true"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "What should not count by itself",
        "lines": [
          "filename=hero-image.png [audit_only_without_affected_element]",
          "selector=img.hero [insufficient_without_rule_and_page_context]",
          "empty_alt_on_decorative_image [requires_decorative_status_review]",
          "brand_logo_without_alt [requires_logo/context_review]"
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Regulatory review context

Accessibility: missing or weak text alternatives

Retained automated accessibility evidence showed non-text content, images, icons, SVGs, or media-related elements with text-alternative signals that may be relevant to WCAG-oriented accessibility review. Applicability depends on element purpose, decorative or informative status, functional behavior, surrounding content, organization type, jurisdiction, and manual accessibility review.

WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text ContentWCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, ValueWCAG 1.4.5 Images of TextADA Title II web/mobile accessibility reviewADA Title III public accommodation accessibility reviewSection 508 ICT accessibility reviewMore context in reference notes

View applicability notes

Legal and regulatory frameworks

WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content (A)Informative, functional, complex, or sensory non-text content lacks an appropriate text alternative.
WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (A)Image buttons, SVG controls, or icon-only controls do not expose an accessible name, role, state, or value.
WCAG 1.4.5 Images of Text (AA)Images of text are used where real text could provide equivalent presentation and accessibility.

Jurisdictional contexts

ADA Title II web/mobile accessibility reviewState or local government web content or mobile apps may be in scope depending on organization context, service context, and manual review.
ADA Title III public accommodation accessibility reviewA business open to the public provides goods, services, or communications through the website.
Section 508 ICT accessibility reviewFederal agency ICT, federal web content, or federal procurement/vendor review may be in scope depending on organization context, procurement context, and manual review.
EN 301 549 / EU accessibility reviewEU public-sector, procurement, Web Accessibility Directive, or European Accessibility Act service context may be in scope depending on organization context, service context, and manual review.
UK public-sector accessibility reviewUK public-sector website or mobile app may be in scope depending on organization context, service context, and manual review.

WCAG references are technical review references. Legal obligations and incorporated versions may vary by jurisdiction and organization type, including WCAG 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, EN 301 549, ADA Title II, Section 508, EU Web Accessibility Directive / European Accessibility Act, and UK public-sector accessibility rules. This finding does not determine legal status or WCAG conformance. Review the retained selector, element purpose, accessible name or text alternative, surrounding text, decorative or informative status, functional behavior, page context, organization type, jurisdiction, and manual accessibility findings.

Evidence standard

Strong

Representative automated text-alternative evidence includes rule ID, affected selector or element reference, page URL, impact label, and WCAG-oriented reference.
Retained evidence gives enough context to review whether the element is informative, functional, decorative, redundant, a logo/brand mark, an image of text, an icon-only control, or media content.
Evidence indicates the affected element is meaningful user-visible or assistive-technology-relevant non-text content, rather than purely decorative or redundant content.
Repeated examples across templates, components, icon systems, cards, media galleries, or marketing modules may strengthen confidence when retained.
Strong evidence does not require human judgment about alt-text quality unless that review is explicitly retained; alt-text appropriateness remains a manual review consideration.

Good

Representative automated rule evidence includes rule ID, selector or element reference, page URL, impact label, and WCAG-oriented references.
The retained example is enough for a reviewer to locate the affected non-text element and inspect alternative text or accessible-name behavior manually.
The evidence is likely a text-alternative issue, but decorative status, functional purpose, surrounding text, redundancy, image-of-text status, or alt-text quality may require manual review.

Audit-only

Contextual signals suggest text-alternative risk, but retained evidence lacks enough detail to confirm the affected element, purpose, accessible name, or surrounding context.
Image, SVG, icon, or media patterns appear suspicious, but no retained automated artifact identifies a user-visible affected element.
The issue may involve CSS background images, canvas, icon fonts, lazy-loaded media, dynamically inserted images, shadow DOM, or responsive image variants where automated evidence is incomplete.

Insufficient

Image filename, class name, or asset URL without a retained affected element or automated text-alternative artifact.
Selector alone without rule ID, page context, or text-alternative evidence.
A visual impression, screenshot, or user report without retained automated evidence or manual accessibility verification.
Treating decorative, redundant, or logo/brand content as finding-supporting evidence without context review.
Claims about WCAG status or legal status based only on automated evidence without manual context review.

Evidence levels explain how CertScore treats retained accessibility artifacts. They are not legal conclusions.

Common causes

CMS image fields allow publishing without required alternative text.
Decorative images are not hidden from assistive technologies, or informative images are incorrectly marked decorative.
Icon-only buttons or SVG controls lack an accessible name.
Image components do not pass alt text or accessible labels through to rendered markup.
Marketing images, charts, badges, logos, or images of text are added without equivalent text context.

Limitations and cautions

This finding is an automated accessibility review signal, not a legal conclusion, certification, or determination of WCAG conformance or non-conformance.
Automated text-alternative checks can identify many missing or empty alternative-text issues, but they may not determine whether an image is informative, decorative, functional, redundant, a logo, an image of text, or already explained by surrounding content.
Automated evidence may miss or misread CSS background images, canvas, SVGs, icon fonts, lazy-loaded media, shadow DOM, responsive image variants, and authenticated or user-triggered content.
Automated evidence may not determine whether alternative text is accurate, concise, equivalent, or useful.
Manual review is needed to confirm element purpose, surrounding context, assistive-technology behavior, user impact, and remediation quality.
CertScore retains representative evidence for review and may not list every repeated instance across CMS content, templates, or component libraries.
Findings should be evaluated with implementation context and applicable accessibility requirements before operational or legal reliance.
Automated findings may contain errors and should be reviewed with the retained evidence.
Not detected means not observed in the scan scope; it is not proof of absence.
Findings are runtime evidence and public-surface observations for review, not legal conclusions.

Reference notes

CertScore uses findings, evidence, signals, and observations consistently: signals are raw runtime or page-surface events, evidence is retained support, observations are interpreted evidence context, and findings are promoted review items.
Findings are runtime evidence and public-surface observations for review. Observed signals may surface possible concerns, but review is recommended before operational or legal reliance.
Finding reference content is reviewed periodically and updated when material guidance changes. CertScore monitors guidance families such as EDPB consent and ePrivacy materials, ICO cookie guidance, CNIL tracker recommendations, FTC privacy and dark-pattern materials, and relevant accessibility guidance where applicable.
Automated accessibility evidence can support WCAG-oriented review, but manual review is needed to confirm context, applicable success criterion, user impact, exception status, assistive-technology behavior, keyboard behavior, and remediation quality.
ADA Title II, ADA Title III, Section 508, EN 301 549, and UK public-sector accessibility contexts may be relevant depending on organization type, procurement context, jurisdiction, and manual review.
Prevalence labels use the Tranco top 1-2500 calibration set, an approximately 2,505-scan directional calibration set.

Text alternative accessibility issue