Start with the buyer’s missing information
A product photograph can do several jobs: identify an item in a search result, show its colour, demonstrate a closure, reveal a size relationship, or merely decorate a promotional banner. Alternative text should communicate the job that matters in that context. W3C’s image decision tree asks whether the image conveys meaning, duplicates nearby text, acts as a link, or is decorative. That is a better starting point than a fixed formula such as “image of” followed by the product title. The same image may need different text when used as the only label in a catalogue card and when repeated beside a detailed description on the product page.
Have the editor write down the decision a customer makes after seeing each image. If a cup comes in two lid designs that look similar in a thumbnail, the alt text should identify the pictured lid or angle when it is not already stated nearby. If a photograph only repeats “green cup” beside a visible colour selector labelled Green, repeating those words may add little. If a buyer needs to know whether the handle folds, add that to the product description as ordinary page text as well; important purchase facts should not be hidden only inside an image or only inside its alt text. The goal is parity of useful information, not a long visual inventory.
Treat catalogue cards as actions
A linked image has a different responsibility when its adjacent text does not name the destination. W3C says functional images should communicate the link or button purpose; an unlabelled linked thumbnail that says only “photo” leaves a screen-reader user unsure where it goes. Inspect the whole card before writing: if the image and product name are inside one link and the accessible name already says the product name, repeating the same words in the image alt can produce a clumsy duplicated name. If the thumbnail is a separate link, it needs a meaningful destination label. The correct wording depends on the card structure and the accessible name exposed by the browser, not simply the file type.
For example, imagine a catalogue with two insulated cups, “Stone 350 ml” and “Stone 500 ml.” Their thumbnails look alike, but the card title contains size and each whole card is one link. A brief alternative that identifies the visually distinct lid colour may add value; repeating the entire title on every image may not. Now imagine the image itself opens a zoom view while the title leads to the detail page. The image control must explain that it opens a larger view, and the zoom must provide a way back to the product decision. This example is a design exercise, not a claim about any real store or product. Check it against the actual markup and assistive output before copying the wording.
Describe the differences across the gallery
On a product detail page, galleries often contain a front view, rear view, detail of a clasp, and an image showing the object in use. Giving every image the identical product title hides those differences. For each informative image, state the feature or view that helps a buyer: “Rear of travel cup showing folding handle” or “Close view of twist lid with drinking opening.” Be accurate and concise; do not infer materials, safety ratings, compatibility, or dimensions from a photograph. Those factual specifications belong in verified product data. If the picture is an annotated size diagram or a comparison chart, it may need information in nearby text or a table because a short alt alone cannot carry every measurement or relationship.
Do not make colour the only carrier of a variant’s identity. A swatch can be labelled with a colour name, and the chosen variant should also be exposed as selected in the control. A gallery image can then describe what is visually different without forcing the user to decode a string of colour names with no context. If there are five near-identical angles, decide whether all five serve a decision; removing redundant images can improve the experience for everyone. If an image truly adds nothing beyond nearby text, an empty alt attribute is appropriate under W3C’s decision tree. Empty alt is an intentional implementation choice, not a missing field to be filled by automated filename text.
Make descriptions part of product publishing
The product editor should see the image at a useful size, the surrounding page text, and the variant it belongs to before entering alt text. A supplier filename such as IMG_2048 or a generated caption is a weak starting point because it may omit the feature the store actually sells. Give staff a field for each image and a prompt asking what new decision information the image contributes. Pair this with a review of title, variant labels, specifications, and captions so the same crucial fact is available as ordinary text. For bilingual pages, write each locale for its readers and use the product names and units that appear on that locale’s page. A literal translation can contradict a localized variant name or omit a detail shown only in that edition.
A workable review can sample high-traffic and high-risk categories first: products where appearance distinguishes variants, accessories that need compatibility details, and images of safety or assembly steps. Do not claim a category is high traffic without analytics; use sales or support questions the business actually has, or state that the sample is based on operational importance. Assign one person to check the descriptions against the real images and another task for correcting the product data when the image reveals a missing specification. If supplier photos change, revisit their alt text; the old wording may now describe a feature no longer visible. Keep an edit trail so corrections do not disappear on the next catalogue import.
Test the purchase journey without sight
Test a search result, a product card, a variant selection, and the image gallery with a screen reader or browser accessibility inspection, ideally alongside someone who relies on the technology. Listen for duplicate names, unlabeled image links, filenames, and gallery items that all sound identical. Temporarily suppress images to see whether a buyer can still tell which variant is offered and where to find specifications. Do not treat one automated “all images have alt” report as proof: the text may be present but unhelpful. Conversely, an empty alt on a decorative or genuinely redundant image can be correct. Record the exact page and image involved, the buyer decision that failed, and the revised wording.
Accept the work when the image’s role is clear, each meaningful difference is available in text, actions are named, and the reading order is useful in both languages. This is a practical editorial and interface check, not a promise that every accessibility issue is solved. If a product photo is too ambiguous to describe confidently, ask merchandising for verified details rather than invent them. If the page cannot express a comparison without sight, improve the page content and controls as well as the image alternative. Better alt text helps the customer make the same informed decision that the visual presentation was designed to support.
Handle images that resist a short description
Some product visuals are evidence rather than decoration. A garment size photograph may show where a measurement starts and ends; an electrical adaptor image may show the shape of a connector; a comparison photograph may place two versions side by side. A short alt can identify the image’s purpose, but the actual measurements, supported models, or differences should be written in nearby text or a structured table. Ask the merchandising owner to verify those details against the item being sold. Do not ask an editor to infer connector compatibility or fabric composition from appearance. If the page uses an image to carry a warning, put the warning in real text too. This preserves it when images fail to load, are magnified, or are not perceived visually.
A second edge case is a lifestyle photograph showing a product in use. It may explain scale or handling, but it can also create an impression that is not a confirmed specification. Describe only what the image visibly contributes, such as “cup held in one hand beside a notebook,” if that context genuinely helps. Avoid claims such as leakproof, child-safe, or fits every holder unless verified in the product data and relevant evidence. Review the image itself at full size, since a small content-management preview can conceal the feature being described. When a photo is replaced, rerun the decision tree: its role may have changed, and yesterday’s accurate text may now mislead the buyer.
Release checks
- Does each image description add the information needed at its actual location?
- Can a customer distinguish variants and image actions without seeing the photos?
- Have both language editions been checked against the real images and product data?
