Clever Geek Handbook

Should tracking pixels have alt attributes for accessibility (WCAG 2.0)?

We are running a website and have third party tracking pixels, but when we receive a website / WCAG 2.0 validation on our site, we get attribute errors alt

.

I'm not sure if in this situation the tracking pixels will actually need to have an empty attribute alt

or will some screen readers read src

?

+2


source to share


2 answers


alt=""

is the most appropriate approach in this case - it tells the reader that the image is purely decorative and should be ignored. Since tracking pixels do not visually convey information, they are inherently decorative from this point of view.

If ALT is not present, some software devices will stop reading the image name (no extension), which you don't need at all.

Some screen readers (JAWS) may ignore small 1x1 or similar sized images, but are best used alt=""

as best practice.



Some links:

+8


source


I did have the opportunity to meet some of the authors of the WCAG 2.0 and regs rules. Large group of people.
When I asked them the question re: pixels, they answered like the others above re: the alt=""

. However, they stated that the preferred way to do this is:

change role="presentation"


and
aria=hidden



This is their default recommendation, however, they stated that the update alt=""

will add protection to help screen readers recognize that the pixel / URL is strictly decorative and not readable by screen readers.

+2


source






More articles:


All Articles