Automate Image Alt Text Accessibility Tagging
A content library built up over years accumulates thousands of images with missing, generic or leftover-filename alt text — 'IMG_4821.jpg' passed straight through, or a blanket 'photo' on every product shot. Writing accurate alt text for the whole back catalog by hand is a slog nobody prioritizes until an accessibility complaint or a compliance deadline forces it, and even then it's easy to either over-describe purely decorative images or under-describe the ones that actually carry meaning.
STARTING PRICE
From €99
Starter tier · Single-workflow automation, one core integration, fast turnaround.
Get a quote →Saves roughly 1-2 hrs per 100 images, plus ongoing per-upload coverage.
How the automation works
We scan the image library and draft alt text grounded in each image's actual content, distinguishing decorative images (which should get an empty alt attribute, not a forced description) from informative ones that need a real description of what the image communicates. For images that function rather than merely depict — a chart, an icon-only button, a graphic with embedded text — the draft alt text describes the function or captures the embedded text rather than a generic scene description. Low-confidence drafts, and any image the system can't classify as decorative or informative with confidence, are flagged for a human pass instead of auto-applied. Batch review queues group similar images together, letting a human reviewer confirm or correct dozens of related drafts efficiently instead of opening each flagged image as an isolated one-off task.
Process flow
- 01
Image library scanned trigger
The image library is scanned on upload and on a scheduled full-library audit, catching both new images and the existing back catalog.
- 02
Classify decorative vs informative ai
Each image is classified as decorative (gets an empty alt attribute) or informative (needs a real description), rather than treating every image identically.
- 03
Draft descriptive alt text ai
Informative images get alt text describing what the image communicates — including embedded text in graphics and the function of icon-only elements, not just a literal scene description.
- 04
Flag low-confidence cases ai
Complex images like infographics and data charts, or any image the classifier is unsure about, are flagged for human review rather than auto-applying a guess.
- 05
Apply alt text to CMS field output
Approved alt text is written directly to the image's alt attribute in the CMS or DAM, with a log of what changed for later audit.
Inputs
- Image library (CMS/DAM)
- Existing alt text (if any) for comparison
- Brand terminology for product/feature names
- Accessibility standard target (WCAG level)
Outputs
- Applied alt text per image
- Decorative-vs-informative classification log
- Low-confidence flag queue for human review
- Alt text coverage report
Works with
Prefer a fully custom build instead of an off-the-shelf integration? We scope both options during your free consultation — most jobs like this one work fine on standard connectors, but higher-volume or non-standard systems sometimes need bespoke API work, reflected in the complex tier.
Where this goes wrong if you get it wrong
- Treating every image as needing descriptive alt text ignores that purely decorative images should get an empty alt attribute, not a description — over-describing a background pattern or a spacer graphic just adds noise for a screen reader user working through the page.
- Generated alt text that describes literal visual content ('a person smiling') misses images that need functional description instead, like a chart's data trend or a button icon's action, which describes what the image communicates rather than what it depicts.
- Images with text baked directly into the graphic — a promotional banner with a headline rendered as an image, not live text — need that text captured in the alt attribute or it's completely invisible to a screen reader, and a generic scene description misses it entirely.
- Complex images like infographics and multi-series charts can't be adequately covered by a single-sentence alt tag, and forcing one produces alt text that's technically present but functionally useless; these need a longer description or a linked text alternative instead.
Frequently asked questions
How does it decide whether an image is decorative or informative?
It looks at the image's context on the page and its content — a background texture or spacer gets classified decorative and left with an empty alt attribute, while an image carrying real information gets a description drafted for review.
Does this generate alt text for images with text baked into the graphic?
Yes — for graphics with embedded text, like a promotional banner, the draft alt text captures that text rather than describing the graphic's visual style, since the text is what a screen reader user actually needs.
Can it run against our entire existing image library, not just new uploads?
Yes — a full-library audit pass covers the existing back catalog, which is usually where the bulk of missing or generic alt text lives, alongside ongoing coverage for new uploads going forward.
Does it auto-apply every generated alt text without review?
No — low-confidence drafts and complex images like infographics are flagged for a human pass rather than auto-applied, since a wrong or misleading alt text is worse than a missing one for those cases.