AI-written alt text can sound fluent and still miss the point

AI-generated alt text should be reviewed against the job an image performs on the page, not just whether the sentence describes visible objects. A fluent description can omit the information a reader needs, repeat nearby text or describe a decorative image that does not need that description at all. For Canadian publishing teams, the useful starting point is the international W3C guidance on image purpose; this review is not a determination of legal accessibility compliance.

The W3C alt decision tree distinguishes informative, functional, complex and decorative uses. That distinction changes the editorial question. Is the image communicating a fact, operating a control, presenting information that needs a fuller equivalent, or simply decorating the page?

Consider a hypothetical photograph of a closed door. In a feature about private reporting spaces, a short description may explain the relevant setting. Used as a decorative background behind a heading, it may add no necessary information. Used as an image link, its alternative text needs to communicate the link's purpose rather than inventory the door's colour and handle. The examples show different uses; they are not results from a model test.

An editor who sends only the image to an AI tool with a request for a description has omitted this context. Our recommendation is to provide the image's intended role, the nearby heading or caption and the information it is meant to convey. Use only a tool and inputs permitted under the organisation's privacy and security rules. Do not upload confidential screenshots or personal information merely to save editing time.

The precautions in redacting sensitive information before AI drafting are relevant to that input decision. Its jurisdictional context is separate; the practical principle here is to avoid disclosing information unnecessarily while preparing an accessibility aid.

Read the proposed text alongside the image and surrounding content. Identify the essential information the reader would otherwise miss. Then remove details that distract from that purpose and challenge any claim the image does not establish. A generator should not be trusted to infer a person's identity, job, health, intention or a precise location from appearance.

For a conceptual editorial cover, the visible credit should disclose that it is illustrative or AI-generated as appropriate. Alt text has a separate job: conveying the useful visual information in that context. Do not hide important rights or AI-disclosure information exclusively in an attribute that many readers will never encounter.

Keep the decision with an accountable editor. Store the accepted text with the exact image and page version, especially where a crop changes the useful content. If the story angle changes later, review whether the old description still serves the new purpose. This is a proposed editorial control, not evidence that any particular AI product is reliable.

W3C guidance on complex images describes a short alternative plus a longer representation of the essential information where needed. A chart can therefore need accessible values, relationships or an explanation beyond a one-line visual summary. Ask whether a reader can understand the intended comparison without seeing the graphic.

An AI-written sentence saying that a line rises is not a verified account of the data. Check the underlying values, units, periods and caveats, and provide the relevant table or explanation in accessible content. A generated chart description cannot repair missing or inaccurate source data. Equally, dumping every visible number into an alt attribute may produce an awkward reading experience without explaining the point.

These invented examples apply the W3C image-purpose guidance. They are proposed editing decisions, not results from accessibility testing.

For the chart example, suppose the values are January 40 MWh, February 50 MWh and March 45 MWh. A short alternative could read: “Monthly electricity use, January to March; values in the following table.” The table preserves the exact comparison; an explanation can note the February peak. Neither the image nor those numbers establishes why use changed.

Keep the draft, corrected text and reason together in the editorial record. Check the rendered link name and chart equivalent in context before accepting them. A good description of a standalone image can still be wrong for its placement on a page.

No. This review addresses one part of publishing. Navigation, controls, structure, contrast and other accessibility considerations still need suitable assessment. For the image workflow, the immediate acceptance test is narrower: correct purpose, supported meaning, no invented details, and an appropriate text equivalent. Include people who use assistive technology in meaningful evaluation where possible; do not claim that evaluation occurred unless it did.

AI assistance was used in preparing this article. No model benchmark, firsthand product test or user study was conducted for this review.

This article is general information. Verify current requirements and seek qualified advice for your specific circumstances.

Spotted an issue? Contact our editorial desk.