Imagine a U.S. florist using AI to describe website images. The same bouquet can illustrate a product, act as a shopping link, or decorate a banner. This is an editorial exercise, not a customer test. Decide what the image does before drafting its alternative text. Successful generation is not evidence that the resulting copy is useful.

When an image is decorative, or nearby text already conveys all its information, another description can add noise. W3C’s decision tree recommends empty alternative text in these cases. An empty alt attribute is not an absent attribute. Record why an image is decorative or redundant so an automated workflow does not later insert an unnecessary description. 

For an image used as a link or button, convey its destination or action rather than appearance alone. If a bouquet is the only shopping link, “View spring bouquets” can communicate more than “Pink flowers.” The wording must match the actual destination. Where visible button text already exists, check whether the combined name repeats itself. 

A useful product-photo description serves the reader’s task. If the page discusses arrangements, colors and combinations may matter. Do not infer price, availability, scent, or delivery promises from pixels. Give the AI editor the page context, and keep observable image details separate from business records so polished prose does not introduce unsupported sales claims.

Suppose the page contains a delivery-area map. A few words may not explain it. W3C recommends short identification plus a longer description carrying essential information for complex images. Adjacent text could list covered areas, restrictions, and an update date for everyone to find. This is a hypothetical content design, not confirmation of any actual delivery coverage. 

Sample by purpose. Without the image, can readers understand what to do? Does the description repeat adjacent copy? Is each business assertion supported? Save the purpose, description, and reviewer together; revisit them when the page’s purpose changes. These are proposed editorial checks, not completed website tests or a declaration of whole-site accessibility conformance.