HTML Validation

An “img” element which has an “alt” attribute whose value is the empty string must not have a “role” attribute.

About This HTML Issue

An empty alt attribute on an img element is a deliberate signal that the image is purely decorative and carries no meaningful content. According to the WHATWG HTML specification, this maps the element to the “presentation” role in the accessibility tree, effectively hiding it from screen readers and other assistive technologies.

When you add a role attribute to an img with alt="", you’re sending contradictory instructions: the empty alt says “this image is decorative, ignore it,” while the role attribute says “this image has a specific semantic purpose.” Browsers and assistive technologies cannot reliably resolve this conflict, which can lead to confusing or inconsistent behavior for users who rely on screen readers.

This rule exists to enforce clarity in how images are exposed to the accessibility tree. If an image is truly decorative, it should have alt="" and no role. If an image serves a functional or semantic purpose — such as acting as a button, link, or illustration — it should have both a descriptive alt value and, if needed, an appropriate role.

How to fix it

You have two options depending on the image’s purpose:

The image is decorative: Remove the role attribute entirely. The empty alt attribute already communicates that the image should be ignored by assistive technologies.
The image is meaningful: Provide a descriptive alt value that explains the image’s purpose. If a specific role is genuinely needed, keep it alongside the non-empty alt.

Examples

❌ Incorrect: empty `alt` with a `role` attribute

<img src="icon.png" alt="" role="img">

<img src="banner.jpg" alt="" role="presentation">

Even role="presentation" is redundant and invalid here — the empty alt already implies presentational semantics.

✅ Correct: decorative image with no `role`

<img src="icon.png" alt="">

If the image is decorative, simply remove the role attribute. The empty alt is sufficient.

✅ Correct: meaningful image with a descriptive `alt` and a `role`

<img src="warning-icon.png" alt="Warning" role="img">

If the image conveys information, give it a descriptive alt value. The role="img" is typically unnecessary here since img elements already have an implicit role of img when alt is non-empty, but it is at least valid.

✅ Correct: meaningful image used in a specific context

<button>
  <img src="search-icon.png" alt="Search">
</button>

Here the image has a descriptive alt and doesn’t need an explicit role because its purpose is conveyed through the alt text and its context within the button.

Learn more:

Last reviewed: February 22, 2026

Was this guide helpful?

Find issues like this automatically

Rocket Validator scans thousands of pages in seconds, detecting HTML issues across your entire site.

Start Free Trial See Pricing

Ready to validate your site?

Find Accessibility and HTML issues in your large sites, in seconds. Get your site scanned by Axe Core and W3C Validator with just one click.

Pro Trial Free Trial

Reading time

1 min read

Category

HTML Validation

Engine

W3C Validator

Last reviewed

February 22, 2026

Resources

Related W3C Validator Issues

A “source” element that has a following sibling “source” element or “img” element with a “srcset” attribute must have a “media” attribute and/or “type” attribute.

A <source> element inside a <picture> that is followed by another <source> or an <img> with srcset must include a media and/or type attribute.

The <source> element is used inside <picture> for responsive images, allowing different resources to be loaded based on conditions such as viewport width (media) or image format (type). According to the HTML standard, when multiple <source> elements are present (or a following <img> with srcset), each <source> must provide a media and/or type attribute so the browser can choose the appropriate resource based on those hints.

Without media or type, the browser cannot distinguish when to use each source, which can lead to validation errors and unexpected rendering behavior.

Incorrect example (causes the validator error):

<picture>
  <source srcset="image1.webp">
  <source srcset="image2.jpg">
  <img alt="" src="fallback.jpg" srcset="fallback2x.jpg 2x">
</picture>

Correct examples (fixing the error):

<picture>
  <source srcset="image1.webp" type="image/webp">
  <source srcset="image2.jpg" type="image/jpeg">
  <img alt="" src="fallback.jpg" srcset="fallback2x.jpg 2x">
</picture>

<picture>
  <source srcset="image-small.jpg" media="(max-width: 600px)">
  <source srcset="image-large.jpg" media="(min-width: 601px)">
  <img alt="" src="fallback.jpg" srcset="fallback2x.jpg 2x">
</picture>

By specifying the media and/or type attributes for each <source>, you satisfy the HTML standard and resolve the W3C validator issue.

Bad value “x” for attribute “src” on element “img”: Tab, new line or carriage return found.

To fix the issue of having a bad value for the src attribute on an img element due to having a tab, new line, or carriage return, you need to ensure that the src attribute does not contain any additional whitespace characters like tab, new line, or carriage return.

Incorrect code:

<img src="images/example.jpg
" alt="Example Image">

Corrected code:

<img src="images/example.jpg" alt="Example Image">

By removing the extra whitespace characters (new line in this case) and ensuring that the src attribute value is properly enclosed within quotes, the issue should be resolved.

Bad value for attribute “src” on element “img”: Illegal character in scheme data: “<” is not allowed.

Bad value for attribute “srcset” on element “img”: Expected width descriptor but found X at Y. (When the “sizes” attribute is present, all image candidate strings must specify a width.)

srcset contains candidates without a width descriptor while sizes is present, so each candidate must use a width (w) descriptor.

When an img has sizes, every srcset candidate must include a width descriptor like 320w, not a pixel density descriptor like 1x. Mixed descriptors are not allowed in the same srcset. Use either:

Width descriptors with sizes (e.g., 320w, 640w, 1024w)
Density descriptors without sizes (e.g., 1x, 2x)

The browser uses sizes to map CSS layout width to the best w candidate. Without sizes, density (x) can be used, but not together with sizes.

HTML examples

Reproduce the issue (invalid: sizes + x descriptors)

<img
  src="photo-640.jpg"
  srcset="photo-640.jpg 1x, photo-1280.jpg 2x"
  sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px"
  alt="Sample photo">

Fix using width descriptors with sizes (valid)

<img
  src="photo-640.jpg"
  srcset="photo-320.jpg 320w, photo-640.jpg 640w, photo-1280.jpg 1280w"
  sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px"
  alt="Sample photo">

Alternative fix: remove sizes and use density descriptors (valid)

<img
  src="photo-640.jpg"
  srcset="photo-640.jpg 1x, photo-1280.jpg 2x"
  alt="Sample photo">

Bad value “” for attribute “(width|height)” on element “img”: The empty string is not a valid non-negative integer.

The HTML specification requires that the width and height attributes on <img> elements, when present, contain a string representing a non-negative integer — that is, a sequence of one or more ASCII digits like "0", "150", or "1920". An empty string ("") does not satisfy this requirement, so the W3C validator flags it as an error.

This issue commonly arises when:

A CMS or templating engine outputs width="" or height="" because no dimension value was configured.
JavaScript dynamically sets img.setAttribute("width", "") instead of removing the attribute.
A developer adds the attributes as placeholders intending to fill them in later but forgets to do so.

Why it matters

Providing valid width and height attributes is one of the most effective ways to prevent Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS). Browsers use these values to calculate the image’s aspect ratio and reserve the correct amount of space before the image loads. When the values are empty strings, the browser cannot determine the aspect ratio, so no space is reserved — leading to layout shifts as images load in, which hurts both user experience and Core Web Vitals scores.

Beyond performance, invalid attribute values can cause unpredictable rendering behavior across browsers. Some browsers may ignore the attribute, others may interpret the empty string as 0, collapsing the image to zero pixels in that dimension. Standards-compliant HTML also improves accessibility by ensuring assistive technologies can parse the document reliably.

Examples

❌ Invalid: empty string values

<img src="photo.jpg" alt="A sunset over the ocean" width="" height="">

Both width and height are set to empty strings, which is not valid.

✅ Fixed: provide actual dimensions

<img src="photo.jpg" alt="A sunset over the ocean" width="800" height="600">

Replace the empty strings with the image’s actual pixel dimensions. These values should reflect the image’s intrinsic (natural) size. CSS can still be used to scale the image visually — the browser will use the width and height ratio to reserve the correct space.

✅ Fixed: remove the attributes entirely

<img src="photo.jpg" alt="A sunset over the ocean">

If you don’t know the dimensions or prefer to handle sizing purely through CSS, remove the attributes altogether. An absent attribute is valid; an empty one is not.

❌ Invalid: only one attribute is empty

<img src="banner.jpg" alt="Promotional banner" width="1200" height="">

Even if only one attribute has an empty value, the validation error will be triggered for that attribute.

✅ Fixed: both attributes with valid values

<img src="banner.jpg" alt="Promotional banner" width="1200" height="400">

Fixing dynamic/template-generated markup

If a template language is outputting empty attributes, use a conditional to omit them when no value is available. For example, in a template:

<!-- Instead of always outputting the attributes: -->

<img src="photo.jpg" alt="Description" width="" height="">

<!-- Conditionally include them only when values exist: -->

<img src="photo.jpg" alt="Description" width="800" height="600">

If you’re setting dimensions via JavaScript, remove the attribute rather than setting it to an empty string:

// ❌ Don't do this
img.setAttribute("width", "");

// ✅ Do this instead
img.removeAttribute("width");

// ✅ Or set a valid value
img.setAttribute("width", "800");

A note on values

The width and height attributes only accept non-negative integers — whole numbers without units, decimals, or percentage signs. Values like "100px", "50%", or "3.5" are also invalid. Use plain integers like "100" or "600". If you need responsive sizing with percentages or other CSS units, apply those through CSS styles instead.

Ready to validate your sites?
Start your free trial today.

Pro Trial Free Trial

An “img” element which has an “alt” attribute whose value is the empty string must not have a “role” attribute.

About This HTML Issue

How to fix it

Examples

❌ Incorrect: empty alt with a role attribute

✅ Correct: decorative image with no role

✅ Correct: meaningful image with a descriptive alt and a role

✅ Correct: meaningful image used in a specific context

Find issues like this automatically

Related W3C Validator Issues

HTML examples

Reproduce the issue (invalid: sizes + x descriptors)

Fix using width descriptors with sizes (valid)

Alternative fix: remove sizes and use density descriptors (valid)

Why it matters

Examples

❌ Invalid: empty string values

✅ Fixed: provide actual dimensions

✅ Fixed: remove the attributes entirely

❌ Invalid: only one attribute is empty

✅ Fixed: both attributes with valid values

Fixing dynamic/template-generated markup

A note on values

❌ Incorrect: empty `alt` with a `role` attribute

✅ Correct: decorative image with no `role`

✅ Correct: meaningful image with a descriptive `alt` and a `role`