The images /images/sample-bdi.png and /images/sample-not-bdi.png has no alt attribute

[izh1979]

The images /images/sample-bdi.png and /images/sample-not-bdi.png has no alt attribute, which is mandatory if I understand correctly.

[Yay295]

Could you give a bit more information as to where these image links are?

[annevk]

Doesn't the specification allow you to rely on figcaption too?

@Yay295 simply search in source for the mentioned URLs.

[domenic]

I am pretty sure this is intentional, because the images just duplicate their captions, and so this falls under

Another corollary is that the alt attribute's value should not repeat information that is already provided in the prose next to the image.

and

4.8.4.1.6 A graphical representation of some of the surrounding text

I guess they should have alt="" though.

[tabatkins]

Yes, a missing alt is a conformance error. An empty alt indicates that the image needs no alt text because it's decorational (which includes "is just visually representing something already depicted in surrounding text).

[zcorpan]

No... The spec allows omitting alt in some cases. Adding alt="" means that the image is not a key part of the content, but here it is.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/embedded-content.html#the-img-element:attr-img-alt-8

[zcorpan]

Maybe we could replace this with text instead of using images, with <bdo dir=ltr> as is done in e.g. https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/#example-4a66a3ef ("What was his name again?" example and the "I’ve read the book" example).

[zcorpan]

The spec allows omitting alt if the document is intended for a specific person (N/A for the spec itself), and for "Images whose contents are not known" (we do know what they contain).

This probably falls under "Ancillary images" where, if there's a caption, alt must not be empty.

[zcorpan]

Looking at the example some more I guess it could fall under "A graphical representation of some of the surrounding text"...

[zcorpan]

OK so then adding alt="" seems correct.