Method
The HTML parser counted image elements and identified image tags with an absent or empty alt attribute. The same seven templates were compared. It did not run keyboard, screen-reader, contrast, zoom, or motion tests.
The interpretation deliberately avoids a misleading percentage: zero missing alt attributes divided by zero images does not establish accessible media handling.
Observed evidence
0 across 7 sampled pagesThere was no inline visual evidence to evaluate.0Not a pass rate because the denominator was zero.Text and external references onlyNo screenshots, charts, or annotated results supported the field claims.Findings
- The accessibility check had no media sample to assess.
- The lack of screenshots and charts also weakened the site's evidence of hands-on observation.
- Adding visuals without captions, alt text, and source context would create a new quality problem rather than solve one.
Decision and resulting changes
Add only purposeful first-party charts or annotated screenshots, provide concise alt text and adjacent explanation, and retain downloadable raw data so the evidence remains usable without the image.
- Added data tables that remain readable without graphics.
- Defined an evidence-image requirement for future hands-on reports.
- Kept decorative imagery out of the remediation release.
Limits and reproduction
Re-run automation/evidence_collector.py against the public origin and compare the resulting JSON fields. A difference is evidence of a changed response, not automatically an improvement.
- No assistive technology was used in this baseline.
- A text-only page can still have accessibility issues unrelated to images.
Primary references
— Baseline captured from the public site, limitations documented, and remediation decision published.
Prepared by SiteSignal Hub Field Lab. Evidence collection and structural checks are automated; no personal use, customer result, or human test is claimed.