508 compliance vs good SEO re: Image alt tags
-
I'm currently in debate with our 508 compliance team over the use of alt tags on images. For SEO, it is best practice to use alt tags so that readers can tell what the image represents. However, they are arguing that these images should NOT have alt text as it doesn't add anything to the disability screen reader as the image text would be repetitive with the text on the page. I feel they are taking the "decorative" image concept in 508 compliance too far. It's intention is for images for bullets, etc that truly are decorative in nature and add no benefit to the reader. What is the communities thoughts on this? Have you ever run into scenario where 508 is attempting to ruin SEO? Usually the 2 play nicely.
-
Even if the image is decorative, it is still describing the contents of the image to visually impaired users. Here's more from Google:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/114016?hl=en
From Google:
"The
alt
attribute is used to describe the contents of an image file. It's important for several reasons:It provides Google with useful information about the subject matter of the image. We use this information to help determine the best image to return for a user's query.
Many people-for example, users with visual impairments, or people using screen readers or who have low-bandwidth connections—may not be able to see images on web pages. Descriptive alt text provides these users with important information."
The image's decorative value is for the user to judge, it's about providing the full story and experience to all users not some.
-
Hi Rose,
Hopefully Donna answered your question already, but I want to jump in with some SEO prioritization advice.
Alt text like this can add to the relevance of the page, but minimally. It can also help your image rank correctly in image search, but that doesn't bring much traffic now that Google pulls images into its results page.
I had similar conversations with our compliance team when I worked for a university, and they had a similar perspective, that alt text should be determined by the flow of the reader rather than for small SEO boosts. The nice thing is, though, when images are important to the flow of the page, and are more likely for the alt text to support the keywords you're trying to target on a page.
In short: if I were you, I'd let this argument go, and just push for alt text on images that tell a story. There's no SEO penalty for not using alt text, and I doubt you're worried about ranking for "father and young son."
Best,
Kristina
-
I'm with you Rose. The alt tag describes the image. If you want it to include your your keywords, assuming they're some combination of "Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration" (your page title tag content), you could alter it to say "noncustodial parent with his young son". You could do the same with the file name, include "noncustodial-parent-son".
Here are google's guidelines, as conveyed by Matt Cutts, head of Google's Web spam team and defacto SEO spokesperson.
-
I'll provide an example. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/projects/child-support-noncustodial-parent-employment-demonstration
On the page linked above, there is a medium size image depicting a father and son. The alt text there is "father with young son", the compliance team is arguing that the alt text should be removed as it adds no value. My thought was around changing the alt text to be more specific to the article, but even how it currently is it tells the screen reader that the image is of a father with his young son which is accurate. The compliance team feels these are decorative images - and I can't disagree more. I was hoping to find some evidence to support my case.
-
I must be thick because I certainly don't understand the statement "they are arguing that these images should NOT have alt text as it doesn't add anything to the disability screen reader as the image text would be repetitive with the text on the page. "
No, I haven't run into this problem before. Perhaps they're referring to situations where alt tags just get stuffed with keywords. Image alt tags shouldn't just repeat the text on the page or act as a repository for keywords, although that's often what you see. Image alt tags should accurately describe the image first, use keywords second and where it makes sense.
So, for example, this page has an alt tag coded for the little blue button above that depicts Roger, the company mascot (<img <span class="html-tag">alt</img <span>="Roger_blue_square"). The text "Roger blue square" doesn't appear anywhere else on the page. (Well I guess it does now!) It's a bit succinct - first time visitors might have a heard time understanding what the image represents - but it is accurate and isn't just stuffed with "Moz Q&A Community" keywords.
I'm waiting for the day when Google decides to start penalizing folks for doing what you've described above.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Domain Authority... http://www.domain.com/ vs. http://domain.com vs. http://domain.com/
Hey Guys, Looking at Page Authority for my Site and ranking them in Decending Order, I see these 3 http://www.domain.com/ | Authority 62 http://domain.com | Authority 52 http://domain.com/ | Authority 52 Since the first one listed has the highest Authority, should I be using a 301 redirects on the lower ranking variations (which I understand how works) or should I be using rel="canonical" (which I don't really understand how it works) Also, if this is a problem that I should address, should we see a significant boost if fixed? Thanks ahead of time for anyone who can help a lost sailor who doesn't know how to sail and probably shouldn't have left shore in the first place. Cheers ZP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mr_Snack0 -
Hreflang in vs. sitemap?
Hi all, I decided to identify alternate language pages of my site via sitemap to save our development team some time. I also like the idea of having leaner markup. However, my site has many alternate language and country page variations, so after creating a sitemap that includes mostly tier 1 and tier 2 level URLs, i now have a sitemap file that's 17mb. I did a couple google searches to see is sitemap file size can ever be an issue and found a discussion or two that suggested keeping the size small and a really old article that recommended keeping it < 10mb. Does the sitemap file size matter? GWT has verified the sitemap and appears to be indexing the URLs fine. Are there any particular benefits to specifying alternate versions of a URL in vs. sitemap? Thanks, -Eugene
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eugene_bgb0 -
SEO implications of serving a different site on HTTPS vs. HTTP
I have two sites: Site A, and Site B. Both sites are hosted on the same IP address, and server using IIS 7.5. Site B has an SSL cert, and Site A does not. It has recently been brought to my attention that when requesting the HTTPS version of Site A (the site w/o an SSL cert), IIS will serve Site B... Our server has been configured this way for roughly a year. We don't do any promotion of Site A using HTTPS URLs, though I suppose somebody could accidentally link to or type in HTTPS and get the wrong website. Until we can upgrade to IIS8 / Windows Server 2012 to support SNI, it seems I have two reasonable options: Move Site B over to its own dedicated IP, and let HTTPS requests for Site A 404. Get another certificate for Site A, and have it's HTTPS version 301 redirect to HTTP/non-ssl. #1 seems preferable, as we don't really need an SSL cert for Site A, and HTTPS doesn't really have any SEO benefits over HTTP/non-ssl. However, I'm concerned if we've done any SEO damage to Site A by letting our configuration sit this way for so long. I could see Googlebot trying https versions of websites to test if they exist, even if there aren't any ssl/https links for the given domain in the wild... In which case, option #2 would seem to mostly reverse any damage done (if any). Though Site A seems to be indexed fine. No concerns other than my gut. Does anybody have any recommendations? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dsbud0 -
SEO and former site
Hi, my client had a site built and hosted with Avvo but we now shut it down and are using a new server. My concern is that Avvo's internal link structure is causing SEO issues. For example, his site will list for "San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney", but is then removed for no reason. Far worse, while he had the AVVO site, it would never rank at all on Google. He's got great content, and no spammy links. This is the site: www.thesandiegocriminallawyer.com. Any thoughts of what I could do to disavow the AVVO pages that Google still has indexed? Does it matter? Or, is it simply a function of time? Thank you for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mrodriguez14400 -
International Image SEO - one host vs multiple hosts
I've got 3 sites (same name) located in Australia, US and UK. Currently these sites are all pulling images (I own) from 1 location. I'd like to create image XML sitemaps for each of these sites. As I see it, my options are: 1. Keeping the images hosted in the 1 place and creating image XML sitemaps for each of the 3 sites (which seems to be technically ok because https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/178636?hl=en&ref_topic=20986 states that if the image URL isn't on the same domain, both domains need to be verified in Webmaster Tools). However, is there a risk here that the sitemaps will conflict because they are pulling from images on the same host? 2. Hosting the images locally (ie. the same images will be hosted in 3 locations) and applying hreflang in the sitemap. Does anyone know which of these options are best (obviously #1 would be more convenient), or whether there are any other options for attacking this issue? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | oline1230 -
Technical SEO issue
Hi Everyone, I have encountered a major issue in one of my clients website(kitchen appliance website). This client has 2 main websites (A & B) linked with each other representing 2 different categories of appliances. We are trying to create some brand pages that this store carries. One brand page has been created and when searching for it on SERP, the results found should be under URL A but it is under URL B. I don't know what is going on? Can someone explain me what happened? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
Does anybody know of a good Spanish-speaking SEO?
This would be really helpful. I need to do some SEO in Mexico and am looking to work with a good Spanish-speaking SEO but have found the pickings slim. Any recommendations and observations would go far. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theghost100 -
What are the bing only SEO tactics?
Recently we realised that our client's SERPs were almost always lower on Bing.com and Bing (canada) when comparing with Google.com and Google.ca We want to know if there's different ranking or blocking factors for Bing and if someone had similar expriences. It would also be appreciated if you have releavent and trusted information on this topic, from blog posts, forums, etc. What are your thoughts on this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RichardPicard0