Screpy’s Image Alt Text Checker finds supported image elements in one page’s fetched HTML and separates missing alt attributes, empty values and supplied text. Use the source evidence to build an editing list, then review what each image contributes to the page. The tool locates attributes; it does not inspect image pixels, write descriptions or certify that a page is accessible.
Check the page that contains the images
Enter one public HTTP or HTTPS page URL, not the address of a photograph or another image file. The source must return readable HTML. For a product gallery, check the product page that contains it. Checking an image file alone cannot show the alternative text assigned where that image is used.
The report reads img elements and input elements whose type is image. It uses the HTML response without executing JavaScript. Images added only after scripts run may therefore be absent, and CSS backgrounds or inline SVG graphics are outside this extracted list.
The checker retains up to 1,000 image rows and can shorten long evidence. These are element occurrences, not a count of unique image files. The same photograph used twice can have two rows and different purposes. Read any partial-coverage notice: the retained list cannot stand for every visual on a large or dynamically rendered page. No supported elements found is a scope result, not proof that the screen contains no images.
Separate missing, empty and supplied alt text
Use the filters to review one category at a time. Missing means the extracted element has no alt attribute. Empty means the attribute exists but contains no meaningful text, including whitespace-only values. Supplied text means the attribute contains text; it does not mean that the description is accurate, helpful or suitable for a screen reader.
Start with missing attributes, then examine empty values in context. W3C WAI’s decorative-image guidance explains why an empty alternative can be appropriate for an image that adds no information. Removing the attribute and writing an empty attribute are different choices. Do not fill every empty value simply to increase the supplied-text count.
Use the image source and HTML line number to locate the element in a template or CMS output. The checker also flags some filename-like values, such as a description ending in .jpg. That is a review hint, not a complete language-quality assessment. Generic, inaccurate or repetitive text can escape that narrow hint and still need editing.
Choose alternative text for the image’s role
Ask what someone would miss if they could not see the image. W3C WAI’s alt decision tree distinguishes informative, decorative and functional uses. The same file can need different treatment on different pages because the surrounding text and purpose change.
These fictional examples illustrate editorial decisions. The wording is appropriate only if the described visual and context are true; the checker has not inspected these images.
| Image’s role | Possible treatment | Condition to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Product photo showing a detail | “Blue backpack with two front zip pockets” | Those visible details matter to the product choice and are accurate |
| Decorative divider | An empty alt attribute | The divider adds no information or function |
| Logo that alone links home | “Example home” | The image is the link’s only content and that is its destination |
| Chart with important values | Brief alternative plus nearby explanation or data table | The essential finding and values remain available without viewing the chart |
For a linked image or image button, explain the destination or action when it would otherwise be unclear. Do not replace that function with a description of the icon’s shape. For a complex chart, avoid putting an entire dataset into one attribute; make the detailed information available in the page content.
Google’s image guidance recommends useful, contextual alternative text and warns against keyword stuffing. Describe the relevant meaning naturally. A list of target keywords is not a substitute for an explanation, and filling an attribute does not guarantee image-search rankings.
Fix the source and review the published page
Correct the field or component that produces the affected element. A CMS media description does not help if the page template never places it in the alt attribute. If the same defect appears across repeated cards or galleries, inspect the shared component as well as individual image entries. Avoid replacing every description with one site-wide default.
Publish the correction and rerun the same page URL. Confirm that the intended attribute reaches the returned HTML, then review the visible page and its surrounding text. Retain intentional empty alternatives and check that informative or functional images convey the right meaning. The aim is usable content, not a report containing only nonempty values.
Manually review important graphics absent from the extracted list and behavior introduced by JavaScript. A full accessibility review involves more than this attribute check. For other page signals, continue with the On-Page SEO Checker; for the document outline, use the Heading Structure Analyzer. Neither turns an alt-text presence check into an accessibility certification.