WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content, explained

Success Criterion 1.1.1 is the first requirement in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and probably the best known. It’s the one that requires alt text. It’s also one of the most commonly failed: WebAIM’s 2026 scan found missing image alt text on 53.1% of the top one million home pages (WebAIM Million 2026).

This guide explains what 1.1.1 actually says, what counts as “non-text content”, the exceptions, and how auditors decide whether a page passes.

The text of the criterion

1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A): All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose, except for the situations listed below.

The situations (W3C, Understanding SC 1.1.1):

• Controls, Input: if non-text content is a control or accepts user input, it has a name that describes its purpose.
• Time-Based Media: text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification (full requirements are in Guideline 1.2: captions, audio description).
• Test: if the content is a test or exercise that would be invalid as text, give at least a descriptive identification.
• Sensory: if it’s mainly meant to create a specific sensory experience, give at least a descriptive identification.
• CAPTCHA: describe its purpose, and provide alternative forms of CAPTCHA using different senses.
• Decoration, Formatting, Invisible: if it’s pure decoration, only visual formatting, or not presented to users, implement it so assistive technology can ignore it.

Level A means it’s in the most basic tier of conformance. WCAG 1.1.1 has the same wording in WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2, so whichever version a law or contract references, this requirement is the same.

The stated intent is that text alternatives “can be rendered through any sensory modality (for example, visual, auditory or tactile) to match the needs of the user”: read aloud, shown in braille, enlarged, or translated (same source).

What counts as “non-text content”?

More than photos:

• Images (<img>, <picture>, <input type="image">, image maps’ <area>)
• Icons, including SVG and icon fonts
• Charts, graphs, diagrams, maps
• Images of text (banners, scanned documents, text in infographics)
• Audio and video (where 1.1.1 asks for identification and Guideline 1.2 does the rest)
• Canvas drawings, animations, emoji used as content
• CAPTCHAs

The key phrase: “serves the equivalent purpose”

1.1.1 doesn’t ask for a description. It asks for an alternative that does the same job. That’s why:

• A linked logo’s alt is “Acme home”, because the job is navigation.
• A search icon button’s alt is “Search”, because the job is the action.
• A chart’s short alt plus a data table conveys the data, because the job is information.
• A decorative swirl gets alt="", because there’s no job to replace.

W3C’s alt decision tree is the practical tool for deciding the job.

Techniques auditors recognise

WCAG lists “sufficient techniques”: known ways to meet the criterion. The ones you’ll meet most for images (names as published by W3C; see the Understanding 1.1.1 page for the full list):

Common failures

W3C also documents “failures”: patterns that fail 1.1.1. Four account for most real-world findings:

• F65: omitting the alt attribute (or text alternative) on img, area and input type="image" elements. The classic missing alt.
• F30: using text alternatives that are not alternatives, for example file names or placeholder text. alt="IMG_4471.jpg" or alt="image".
• F39: providing a non-null text alternative (for example alt="spacer" or alt="image") for images that should be ignored by assistive technology. Describing decoration.
• F38: not marking up decorative images in a way that allows assistive technology to ignore them.

Plus the implicit one: alt text that’s present but wrong. It describes the wrong thing, misses the purpose, or contradicts the image. No automated rule catches that. It’s a judgement failure against “serves the equivalent purpose”.

Related success criteria

1.1.1 rarely travels alone. Audits commonly log these alongside it:

• 1.4.5 Images of Text (AA): use real text instead of images of text where possible (logos are excepted).
• 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (A): linked images need alt text that makes the link’s purpose clear.
• 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (A): controls, including icon buttons, need an accessible name.
• 2.5.3 Label in Name (A): a control’s accessible name should include its visible label.
• Guideline 1.2 (Time-based Media): captions, transcripts and audio description for media.

What an automated checker can, and can’t, verify

Can verify reliably: - An <img> has no alt attribute (F65). - A linked image or image button has no accessible name. - An alt value looks like a file name or a placeholder (“image”, “photo”, “logo”). - The same alt text repeats across many different images. - An alt duplicates adjacent text.

Can only flag for review: - Empty alt on an image that looks informative (only a human knows if it’s decorative). - Very long alt (maybe a complex image needing a long description).

Can’t verify: - Whether the alt is accurate and serves the equivalent purpose. - Whether a long description really conveys the chart.

So a checker can tell you a page definitely fails 1.1.1. It can’t tell you a page passes. Passing needs a human review of each image’s purpose, and conformance to WCAG as a whole involves every other success criterion too.

Who requires it

WCAG is referenced by many laws and standards, usually at Level AA (which includes all of Level A, so 1.1.1 is always in):

• US, ADA Title II: the DOJ’s 2024 rule adopted WCAG 2.1 AA for state and local governments. In April 2026 the compliance dates were extended to 26 April 2027 (population 50,000+) and 26 April 2028 (smaller entities and special districts) (Federal Register, 20 Apr 2026).
• EU: EN 301 549 is the harmonised standard for accessibility. V3.2.1 (based on WCAG 2.1 AA) remains the cited version until V4.1.1 (WCAG 2.2) is cited in the Official Journal (AccessibleEU, Sep 2026). See our EAA guide.

Meeting 1.1.1 is necessary for those standards but nowhere near sufficient on its own.

A practical workflow

1. Inventory every image across the site (crawl, or the Altpass site audit).
2. Fix the definite failures: missing alt, file names, nameless linked images.
3. Review the judgement calls: empty alt on informative-looking images, generic alt.
4. Write long descriptions for complex images.
5. Re-test with a screen reader on key pages.
6. Keep it fixed: alt text in the publishing checklist, re-scan regularly.

Start with a scan

Run the free Altpass checker on any page to see the definite 1.1.1 failures and the images worth a human look. It’s free, unlimited and needs no signup. It will tell you what’s broken. Deciding what’s right is still your job, and the guides on this site are here to help with that.

Updated 2026-10-07