One of the biggest hot topics in publishing right now is the use of alt text—that is, brief descriptions of an image in an electronic article. The first installment of this two-part series discusses the potential benefits that come with the use of alt text. These include accessibility for those with visibility challenges, opportunities for authors to use as many SEO keywords as possible, and methods to circumvent images that fail to load properly on readers’ computers.
But as is the case with most new concepts, alt text comes with potential pitfalls. Alt text has been part of the publishing landscape for a relatively short period of time. Still, editors and authors are already starting to express concern about use of AI to generate it—and whether human subject matter vetting will be part of the equation. Editors and journal board leaders are also rightfully concerned about alt text adding unnecessary repetition into authors’ work.
Then, there’s the issue of decorative images—that is, images used solely for aesthetic purposes that don’t play a significant role in article comprehension. Is it even advantageous to use alt text for those types of images at all? At least for now, the general consensus seems to be, “no.”
The AI Factor
Currently, AI is making its way into pretty much all types of writing—from technical writing to copywriting, and even fiction writing. This is unlikely to change anytime in the foreseeable future, which could be a good thing or a negative thing for the publishing business, depending on individual perspective.
But as far as alt text goes, most of the current chatter around AI is more about potential risks than benefits. Specifically, editors and journal board members are expressing concern about authors simply asking an AI program (such as ChatGPT) to create alt text for them, without taking the time to check its work. At the very least, this creates room for low-quality alt text that doesn’t add any meaningful value to the article.
And it often even goes beyond that—poorly checked alt text generated by AI could even add inaccurate information to an article. This is particularly true for articles about science, medicine, or complex financial topics. AI has never been, and will never be, a subject matter expert in these complicated fields. So, without a human subject matter expert to vet what it generates, there’s a real chance of introducing factual errors into an article by adding alt text.
Another point of contention is that AI could actually have the opposite SEO impact from what the author intended. As mentioned in part I of this series, alt text can be a boost for search engine optimization (SEO) when it’s done thoughtfully and correctly. But if authors are relying exclusively on AI without reviewing the output, it could end up having the opposite effect on SEO, driving readership down instead of up.
If authors carefully check the work that AI is doing to generate alt text, there’s much less cause for concern. But realistically, with authors’ time constraints, unedited AI-generated alt text is—at least some of the time—pretty much unavoidable.
Too Much Repetition
As mentioned in part I, at least in theory, alt text should play a completely different role from image captions. Alt text is designed to describe an image, with words, in terms of relevant content. A caption, meanwhile, is less about the image itself and more about the context of that image when looking at the rest of the article.
By that logic, alt text and captions shouldn’t overlap with each other, nor should alt text overlap with other text that’s already in the article.
But in practice, again, there’s the issue of time limits. Many authors do not have the bandwidth to make sure none of that overlap is there. The result could be alt text that just rehashes what’s already obvious in an image caption, and/or in other text elsewhere in the published piece. This completely defeats the purpose of adding alt text to begin with.
Purely Decoration
Many published images add some kind of contextual value to the publication; in those cases, without question, alt text would be helpful. But in other instances, if the photo is just published because it’s visually appealing and doesn’t add meaning, it’s debatable whether alt text would be beneficial—and right now, most authors and editors are leaning toward omitting alt text in those instances.
For instance, in a publication about marine and beach life, photos depicting certain species native to those areas provide legitimate contextual aid. But what about a photo just showing a sunset over the ocean? Yes, it’s beautiful—but adds nothing else. So, any kind of alt text might confuse readers about the overall meaning of the published piece.
In some cases, there’s obviously going to be some gray area about whether an image is decorative or informative. And it’s ultimately up to the author to make that judgment call—and, thus, how to handle alt text (or if alt text is even appropriate at all). But that can be a tough call to make, and one that should be handled with care.
What Can Be Done?
Because alt text is so new to the publishing realm, it’s difficult to predict whether the benefits will ultimately outweigh the negatives. It’s also hard to establish a formal set of rules governing its use. But editors and journal boards can definitely take steps as a start.
First of all, clear rules and regulations must be established about how—or even if—AI can be used in the alt text generation process. Those rules should then be explicitly communicated with prospective authors, along with the penalties for breaking those guidelines. Realistically, AI is likely too omnipresent to be totally removed from all alt text everywhere, every time. But by setting specific boundaries, editors and journal boards can at least take steps toward preventing it from doing more harm than good.
Character and/or word limits in alt text might also help mitigate the risk for redundancy in alt text language. By prohibiting authors from exceeding a certain word/character count in alt text, editors significantly reduce the chance of that alt text essentially repeating other text or captions in the article. Theoretically, this shouldn’t be happening anyway, since captions, main text, and alt text are all supposed to serve totally different purposes. In practice, though, it’s a trap that’s easy for authors to fall into—but not if there are clear, enforced guidelines.
And when it comes to deciding whether images are decorative or informative—hence, whether or not they need alt text—getting at least one second opinion could be wise. The answer isn’t always as clear-cut as it seems, and two different authors could see the images in two totally different ways. Less isn’t always more; multiple sets of eyes are the way to go.
Conclusion
Alt text is quickly becoming the norm within a fairly short period of time—in fact, many publications have already made it a mandatory part of author submission forms. So, the question isn’t really whether to use it, but instead how to work with it in a way that will maximize the benefits and minimize the risks. And the publishing realm is learning more and more about the answer to that question every day!
By Anne Brenner
