ACT Rule e88epe · proposed
Image not in the accessibility tree is decorative
This is the mirror image of the alt text rules. It finds images that assistive technology ignores and asks whether ignoring them was right. A visible photograph that a screen reader never mentions is only correct if the photograph was decoration.
A tool can decide this one on its own, which is why it turns up in scanner output. The rule is proposed, so it has not yet been implemented in full by a tool and reviewed by a W3C working group, and the wording can still change.
What passing this rule proves
When this rule fails, 1.1.1 Non-text Content is not satisfied, and that half is certain. When it passes, W3C's own outcome mapping says the criterion still needs further testing. So a green result here is evidence that one specific thing is not broken, and it is the answer W3C gives on 59 of its 87 live rules.
Only a person can say whether an image was decoration. The rule finds the candidates and somebody has to look at each one and decide whether a reader who never sees it has lost anything. W3C adds that the answer can still be no even when the image carries information, as long as the same information is written somewhere else on the page.
The criteria this rule is a test for
These are the criteria the rule names as its own conformance requirement. Each one is a far bigger question than this rule asks, and our page for it sets out what the whole criterion covers.
- 1.1.1 Non-text Content Level A
The normative rule text lives at W3C
What the rule applies to, and exactly what it expects, is published by W3C and can change. We link to it rather than restate it, so nothing here can quietly fall out of date against the source. Read rule e88epe at W3C.
Decorative images should be marked as such
Not every image carries meaning. Dividers, background textures and icons that sit beside their own label add nothing when read aloud and announcing them interrupts.
Marking one decorative is a real decision, not a shortcut. An empty alt attribute says this can be skipped and that has to be true.
The reverse error is more damaging. A meaningful image marked decorative removes its content for anyone who cannot see it. They get no description at all.
Fixes that satisfy it
If this rule fails on your site, these are the techniques that put it right.
Other rules W3C files under the same criteria
Each of these asks a different question about the same part of the standard. Passing all of them is still not the same as satisfying the criterion.
- Element marked as decorative is not exposed A tool can check this
- Image accessible name is descriptive A tool finds candidates, you decide
- Image button has non-empty accessible name A tool can check this
- Image has non-empty accessible name A tool can check this
- Link has non-empty accessible name A tool can check this
- Object element rendering non-text content has non-empty accessible name A tool can check this
All 87 ACT rules are grouped by the criteria they test, and 24 of them decide nothing about WCAG on their own. Run a free scan to see which of these your own pages trip.