WCAG 1.1.1 Non-text Content requires that everything on your page that isn’t text — images, icons, charts, image buttons, CAPTCHAs, and audio or video — carries a text alternative that serves the same purpose. Purely decorative content is the one exception: it must be marked so assistive technology can ignore it.

What WCAG 1.1.1 requires

This is the very first numbered criterion in WCAG, and it sits at Level A, the baseline tier of conformance. The official rule from the W3C Understanding 1.1.1 document is short: “All non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose.” The word “equivalent” is the whole game. A photo of a red sweater isn’t met by alt="image" — the alternative has to convey what a sighted user gets: that it’s a red crew-neck sweater.

The criterion spells out specific situations, and each one has its own bar:

  • Controls and input (image buttons, image maps): the alternative must be a name that describes the control’s purpose — what it does, not what it looks like.
  • Charts, graphs, and complex images: a short alternative names it, and a long description conveys the data or information.
  • Audio and video: at minimum, a text label that identifies the media (fuller captions and transcripts are covered by other criteria in Guideline 1.2).
  • CAPTCHA: text describing its purpose, plus an alternative CAPTCHA using a different sensory mode (e.g., audio as well as visual).
  • Decoration, formatting, invisible content: must be implemented so assistive technology ignores it — an empty alt="", not a missing attribute.

Who 1.1.1 affects

Non-text alternatives are the bridge between visual content and people who can’t see it — or can’t see it the way you intended.

  • Blind and low-vision users running screen readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver) hear the alt text read aloud. With no alternative, the image is functionally invisible; with a bad one, they hear a file name like IMG_4821.jpg.
  • Deaf-blind users receive your alt text on a refreshable braille display — the only way that content reaches them at all.
  • People with cognitive or learning disabilities benefit when text alternatives reinforce or clarify a complex graphic.
  • Anyone on a slow or image-blocked connection sees the alt text where the image would have loaded.

Because it touches the most common element on the web — the image — 1.1.1 is also the most frequently failed meaningful criterion. In the 2026 WebAIM Million report, missing alternative text affected 53.1% of home pages, the second most common failure type after low-contrast text, and 16.2% of all home-page images were missing alt text entirely.

Concrete failures and how to fix them

The W3C catalogs a specific failure for this criterion — F65: omitting the alt attribute (and any aria-label, aria-labelledby, or title) on img, area, and input type="image" elements. Here are the patterns we fix most often, with the actual code.

1. Informative image with no alt. The most common failure on the web.

<!-- Fails 1.1.1 -->
<img src="red-sweater.jpg">

<!-- Passes -->
<img src="red-sweater.jpg" alt="Red merino crew-neck sweater, front view">

2. Decorative image given a description (or no attribute at all). A divider or background flourish should be silent to a screen reader.

<!-- Noise: reader announces "decorative swoosh graphic" -->
<img src="swoosh.svg" alt="decorative swoosh graphic">

<!-- Correct: empty alt tells AT to skip it -->
<img src="swoosh.svg" alt="">

3. Icon-only button with no accessible name. A magnifying-glass button reads as nothing — or as “button” — to a screen reader. This overlaps with WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value.

<!-- Fails: no name -->
<button><svg>...</svg></button>

<!-- Passes: the action is named -->
<button aria-label="Search">
  <svg aria-hidden="true">...</svg>
</button>

4. Image button that submits a form. Per 1.1.1, the alt must describe the action, not the picture.

<input type="image" src="go.png" alt="Submit search">

5. Chart or infographic with a one-word alt. alt="chart" fails — the data is the content. Give a concise alt plus a longer description nearby or via aria-describedby.

<img src="sales.png"
     alt="Bar chart: Q1–Q4 sales"
     aria-describedby="sales-desc">
<p id="sales-desc">Sales rose from $1.2M in Q1 to $3.4M in Q4,
with the largest jump between Q2 and Q3.</p>

A subtler trap is text baked into an image — a “50% OFF” banner saved as a JPG. Screen readers can’t read pixels, and the offer is lost. The fix is real text styled with CSS, or alt text that repeats the wording exactly.

How to test for 1.1.1

Automated scanners catch the blatant cases — a missing alt attribute is easy to detect — but they cannot judge quality. A tool sees alt="photo" and reports a pass; a human knows it’s useless. So testing 1.1.1 is part scan, part judgment.

  1. Run a scanner (axe, WAVE, or a free Curbcut scan) to flag every image, button, and input missing a text alternative.
  2. Turn off images in your browser, or use a screen reader, and walk the page. Every meaningful image should still make sense; every decorative one should stay silent.
  3. Audit each alt for equivalence. Ask: would someone who can’t see this get the same information or function? Reject file names, “image of,” and text that just repeats an adjacent caption.
  4. Check the non-obvious non-text content — icon buttons, image maps, CSS background images that carry meaning, charts, and CAPTCHAs.

Because the line between “good enough” and “useless” alt text is a human call, automated tools alone never close 1.1.1. That’s why thorough work pairs scanning with manual review — the approach behind a proper accessibility audit. Our deeper alt text guide walks through writing alternatives that actually pass, and how screen readers work shows why the wording matters so much.

Missing alt text is the single most cited barrier in ADA website demand letters, for a simple reason: it’s trivial to prove. A plaintiff’s tester runs a screen reader, hits an unlabeled “Add to Cart” button, and the failure documents itself. The volume of these cases is substantial — UsableNet’s 2024 Year-End Report counted 4,187 digital accessibility lawsuits filed that year, and roughly 25,000 since 2018. Notably, UsableNet found that over 1,000 businesses sued in 2024 had an accessibility widget installed — the overlay tools that promise auto-generated alt text but don’t deliver equivalent, accurate alternatives.

Courts and the DOJ treat WCAG 2.1 AA as the practical benchmark for an accessible site, and because 2.1 AA includes every Level A criterion, you cannot conform while 1.1.1 is broken. For background on how the tiers stack, see conformance levels A, AA, and AAA.

This is general information, not legal advice. For guidance on your specific exposure, consult a qualified attorney.

Where 1.1.1 fits — and how Curbcut fixes it

Non-text content is the foundation criterion: it’s where most audits begin, because it’s high-volume, high-impact, and fully fixable in code. The catch is that “fixable” means written by a person who understands the content. Auto-generated alt text — the headline feature of most accessibility overlays — produces descriptions like “a person sitting at a table,” which technically fills the attribute but fails the equivalence test at the heart of 1.1.1. (More on why overlays don’t work.)

Curbcut is deliberately anti-overlay. Our team — [EXPERT_NAME] and [AGENCY_NAME] — writes and corrects alternatives by hand during remediation, describing your products, your charts, and your controls the way a customer would experience them. If you want to see exactly which images, icons, and buttons on your site fail 1.1.1 today, start with a free scan and we’ll show you the list.