WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WebAIM: Redundant link alert in Wave

for

From: Mallory
Date: Aug 3, 2020 11:59AM

I have smelly opinions on redundant links. :P

Sometimes, they help you to be *robust* -- for example, having multiple ways to reach a contact page. They might all be called "contact" or "contact us".

Sometimes, they are a pain in the butt and can even cause confusion: adjacent redundant links adjacent redundant links. Usually happens when someone wants a large clickable area for mouse users, so they wrap a link around an image (with the alt text being set as the link text, such as a product name) and then another link on the text immediately following (keeping with this example, the product name again). Example: "Kyocera Ecosys P5021cdw" "Kyocera Ecosys P5021cdw".

Most of those are merely annoying, however I have encountered them and made tickets for them when the link text is a long legal paragraph. That's already terrible link text, doesn't really tell users where exactly it will take them... hearing it twice causes users to need better working memory, in order to determine if these are two different links or just repeats. I eventually expect a later version of the WCAG to hit those under coga reasons. Today we can only use 2.4.4 Link Text in context.

This specific case of "shop now" if I'm already on a site where I am shopping, I'm not sure I can really tell where that even takes me-- so someone could possibly argue having vaguely-named links twice could be a problem. I wouldn't mention it in an audit at all, personally.

In light of Steve's point, this might be an excellent opportunity to give one of those nebulous "Shop now" links a better name. Is the main site not a shop at all, so the links go to a dedicated shop? "Buy [brand] stuff now" might be a better call to action for one of them. If the whole site is a shop, then where does that link take you? Promoted stuff? Most recent sale? Top-rated by buyers? Consider using any of that info in one of the links. I think it would still count as a call-to-action.

cheers,
_mallory

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, at 5:17 PM, Steve Green wrote:
> Unfortunately, Wave seems to be the tool of choice for the
> ambulance-chasing parasite lawyers that bring all the ADA cases in the
> US. The tool invariably finds redundant links, and the law suits always
> mentions them as being insurmountable accessibility barriers.
>
> We all know that's nonsense, but the defence lawyers don't want to get
> into technical arguments in court, so they just accept it and pay the
> resulting large settlement.
>
> So our advice to clients in the US is to fix every one of those
> redundant links (and all other false positives). There is no
> accessibility barrier, but they make you more vulnerable to spurious
> ADA claims. In countries with a more reasonable legal system (just
> about everywhere else except North Korea) you can afford to ignore the
> redundant links.
>
> Steve Green
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>