Technical access and useful content
Make meaningful media available and understandable.
Meaningful media needs a usable source, a clear role in its page and an equivalent way to recover the information it conveys. Review discovery, loading, alternatives and provenance separately. An image that loads is not automatically understandable, and a helpful description does not prove permission to publish it.
Free learning from Semantec SEO.
State the media’s job and its surrounding context.
Identify what the image or video helps the reader do. It may show a physical arrangement, explain a process, document an observation or illustrate an idea. These truth categories differ: a generated illustration cannot be presented as a photograph of a real event or proof of a measured result.
Place a meaningful visual beside the explanation it supports. Give the page a useful title and headings, and keep necessary conditions in ordinary text. Avoid placing the only explanation of a process inside a raster image. The reader should not need to read small baked words to complete the task.
This page concerns technical access and understandable alternatives. Selecting a visual to clarify a particular claim is a related editorial task with its own evidence review. A discoverable image can still mislead if it is paired with an unsupported claim.
Inventory the source file, page location, creator or provider, truth status, applicable version and intended audience. If an existing video contains useful instruction, assess its current accuracy before replacing it merely to simplify the layout.
Check image and video source access.
Google’s image documentation recommends ordinary img elements with a usable src; responsive alternatives should retain a fallback source. A CSS background image can decorate a page but is not the same discovery mechanism. Inspect the final HTML and the returned resource rather than trusting an editor preview.
Test the media URL, response, content type, access state and required dependencies. Check for expired signatures, broken paths, blocked resources or a file that loads only in the signed in session. A successful page response does not establish that its image or video resource can be fetched.
For video, inspect the player in the rendered page, stable media and thumbnail references, and meaningful surrounding description. Do not rely on a click to create the only discoverable player. Playback, controls and search eligibility are separate checks; adding video markup does not guarantee video indexing.
Check mobile delivery and failure behavior as well. An appropriate responsive image can reduce transfer burden while retaining the detail the explanation needs. A tiny or badly cropped source may load but fail its informational role.
Use alternatives, captions and transcripts for their jobs.
Alt text describes the purpose or information of an image in context. A simple informative image can often use a concise alternative. A complex process or chart needs a complete text equivalent in the page as well; an enormous alt attribute is not a practical replacement for structured steps or a data table.
Decorative images should not add unnecessary narration. Linked images need an accessible name that communicates the link’s purpose. Review the rendered context rather than assigning the same generic description to every image.
Video captions represent speech and relevant non speech audio in synchronized text. A transcript offers a readable text record but does not reproduce synchronization. Visual information needed to understand a video may also need audio description or an appropriate media alternative. Check the applicable WCAG criteria for the media type and context rather than claiming one transcript satisfies everything.
A visible image caption is different from video captions. Use nearby page text for source, scope and explanation when that is clearer; a caption beneath every illustration is not compulsory. For the illustrations on this page, titles and alt metadata describe the assets while the explanation remains ordinary page text.
Worked example: preserve a process without the image.
This is a fictional editorial process for classifying draft records, not instructions for real software. The accepted rule is: read the source record; if evidence is missing, place the draft on hold; if the source contradicts the draft, send it for correction; otherwise send the supported draft to review. Nothing in this process authorizes automatic publication.
The nearby sorting tray illustration suggests separating draft records, but it does not encode the exact branch conditions. “Follow the image” alone would lose those conditions when the image fails or cannot be seen. The ordinary text and static table name every condition, action and next state without relying on color or position.
A suitable short alternative for an exact process diagram would identify the branching draft review process and point to the adjacent full explanation. The explanation must preserve missing evidence, contradiction, the otherwise route and the prohibition on automatic publication. Decorative illustration should not be described as if it encodes exact conditions.
Test the page with images unavailable and with the process read in text order. The reader should still know which condition controls each action. If a real process video is used, compare its spoken and visual instructions with the same accepted rule, then check captions, alternatives and player operation.
| Condition | Action | Next state or limit |
|---|---|---|
| Source evidence missing | Place the draft on hold | Do not send for approval until evidence is resolved |
| Source contradicts draft | Send for correction | Review corrected wording against the source |
| Evidence supports the draft and no contradiction remains | Send to review | Review is still required |
| Any process path | Do not publish automatically | The process grants no publication permission |
Verify rights, source changes and the finished page.
Keep a provenance record: creator or provider, source URL or asset ID, license or permission evidence, attribution instructions, modification restrictions and review date. Public availability alone is not proof of permission. Record unresolved rights instead of assuming a search result grants publication rights.
For generated media, retain the creation receipt and truth status. Do not imply that a model output documents a real person, facility or client result. Review reused assets against the current context, including a caption or description that might have made sense on an earlier page.
Check the published resource, alternative text, responsive sources, surrounding explanation and any required attribution. For video, test keyboard controls, caption availability and playback without claiming that one screenshot proves operation. Rights verification and accessibility testing need their own evidence.
Reopen the record when a source file, license, underlying procedure or destination changes. Replace inaccurate material or its explanation together. A complete handoff identifies the owner, source state, unresolved checks and next maintenance action.
Sources and further reading.
The linked documents explain platform behavior and accessibility requirements. The examples and decision records here are editorial teaching material, not observations from a live audit.
Continue learning
Choose the next related task.
Use the technical access and indexing hub. Return to the semantic SEO learning overview to choose another subject.