Which is ok too. It is far better than encouraging people to write alt="" or alt="asdf".
See also (naming things): https://twitter.com/secretGeek/status/7269997868
They are encouraging people to write alt text, not encouraging people to write alt="".
That's like saying "Typescript just encourages people to make everything `any` instead of defining types. It's a useless addition over JS." Sure, you _could_, but most actually use the actual tool.
alt="" has a specific and intentional meaning which is _always_ better for accessibility than an unset alt
It's 6 extra characters, you'll survive.
Which just means codebases will be littered with alt="" for no reason.
It's often better to specify alt="" than not at all, because screen readers may use the filename instead if there's no alt attribute.
That's actually a detriment then, if the "fix" for no a11y makes screen readers think they should use no alt text, instead of some possibly meaningful alternate.
The fix for no a11y is to add a11y. In many cases (i.e. the "often" specified by GP), images contain no extra information, in which case you should indicate that by adding alt="". In other cases, you should add an actual description.
I meant the "fix" of people not caring about a11y(which is why I put it in quotes) and just trying to get their code to compile.
If people don't care about a11y, they aren't going to start devoting time to it because a tool puts a slight roadblock in their way - they're just going to try to bypass the tool.
Which usually means never.