If photo descriptions are part of your assignment, deliver a suggested description beside each exact filename and its intended use. Ask where the photo will appear and what information it needs to convey. The publisher must review that suggestion in the finished page: the same image can need different wording when it explains a detail, repeats nearby information or acts as a link.
Ask where the photo will appear
Alternative text, often called alt text, conveys an image’s relevant information or function in text. It can be used by a screen reader when the image is not visually available to the reader. W3C’s image guidance makes context central: a useful alternative depends on why that image is present, not only on the objects you can see.
Before writing, ask the brand for the intended page or placement, surrounding wording and any linked destination. A product-detail photo and a photo used as the only content of a link do different jobs. If these details are unknown, label the proposed description as awaiting publisher review instead of declaring it ready for every channel.
Agree whether this writing is included in the assignment, which language is needed and who applies it at publication. A description sheet is a suggested handoff method, not a mandatory extra deliverable or a field that every publishing tool supports. Do not assume that writing text in a filename, visible caption or delivery message sets the image’s alt text.
Describe the information the image contributes
Open the actual exported photo and identify the detail that matters for its intended use. For an informative product image, W3C recommends a short alternative conveying its meaning. A phrase about the relevant shape or visible opening is often more useful than an inventory of every shadow and background object.
Separate observation from a claim that needs product evidence. A visible hole does not prove drainage performance; a surface that looks ceramic does not establish its material. Use confirmed product facts when needed to identify the item, but do not turn a visual description into an unsupported durability or health promise.
Read the nearby text before repeating it. A heading that only names the product may leave useful visual information unexplained. If the image adds no information beyond equivalent nearby text, or serves only decoration, the publisher may need a decorative treatment. For an HTML image, W3C’s decision tree calls for an explicitly empty alt attribute in the decorative case. Do not treat a missing description as proof that this decision has been made.
If an image is the only understandable content of a link or button, its alternative needs to communicate the destination or action. Ask what the control actually does. A beautiful description of ribbing cannot tell the reader whether the image opens product details or enlarges the photo.
Example: one planter, different photo uses
Imagine an agreed English description sheet for a fictional teal ribbed planter. The first file shows the whole empty planter; a second hypothetical file shows its underside with a visible central hole. No shoot, published page or user test was performed for this example. The generated cover illustrates the planter and a card bearing a photo with a blank lower area; it does not show the underside or demonstrate working alt text.
Fictional description handoff: proposals depend on the stated context
| File and intended use | Suggested wording or decision | Publisher question |
|---|---|---|
| planter-front-v01.jpg — informative gallery photo | “Teal planter with vertical ribs and a rounded lower edge.” | Does the actual photo show these features, and do they add useful information beyond the surrounding text? |
| planter-base-v01.jpg — detail explaining the underside | “Underside of the planter with a single central hole.” | Is that hole visible in this final file? Keep drainage or plant-health claims out of this description. |
| planter-front-v01.jpg — photo-only link to this item’s product page | Describe the destination, for example “View the teal ribbed planter,” after confirming where the link goes. | Is the image the link’s only understandable label? If it instead opens an enlarged photo, the action needs different wording. |
| planter-front-v01.jpg — repeated beside text conveying all its relevant information | Flag possible decorative treatment for the publisher; do not supply a second description automatically. | Does the finished placement truly add no further information or function? A nearby product name alone is not enough to decide. |
These are proposed words for the stated scenarios, not universal descriptions attached permanently to the files. A publisher may use the same photo in more than one place and reach different decisions. For an Arabic page, write and review the corresponding Arabic wording against that page’s actual context; an English sheet does not supply an Arabic alternative.
Hand over the suggestion and the remaining decision
Keep the proposed wording separate from the publisher’s confirmed implementation. Deliver enough context for the recipient to understand what you observed, what you assumed and what still needs an answer. Use a record like this for each intended placement; it is an editorial aid, not a W3C form.
Photo description record Exact filename and version: [file] Intended page, placement and language: [known use] Relevant visible information: [what this photo contributes] Nearby wording or linked action: [confirmed detail or unknown] Suggested text: [draft wording, or decision to review] Open question: [what the publisher must resolve] Publisher and decision: [person, wording and status] Final photo/page checked: [actual version and observation]
If the publisher crops or replaces the image, reopen the final version. A crop may remove the opening named in a description; a replacement may show a different variant. Update the affected suggestion and identify which placement needs another review. Do the same if the surrounding text or linked action changes.
Ask the publisher to verify that the agreed alternative is applied to the intended image and works in the actual publishing system. That is a separate check from approving your sheet. This focused handoff does not establish full accessibility conformance, search visibility or sales results; it makes the remaining publication decisions clear.