RE: A tag looking like a BUTTON tag. Fail?

I often refer to  2.1.1 keyboard operable. Keyboard users will expect links that look like buttons to act like buttons (i.e. are operable with spacebar and Enter keys). But even with role=button this requires additional scripting and is often missed. I recognise that some people may not fail this on 2.2.1 as the button can still be operated by Enter key but 
I am strong support of the COGA perspective: if it looks like a button, if should act like a button.

There was a really good explanation of why native button elements should be used in the session on creating accessible forms at a London Accessibility Meetup (about 7 mins in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHaLzm-FGsc . 

Best wishes

Abi

Dr Abi James

Accessibility Consultant and Researcher



-----Original Message-----
From: Bristow, Alan <Alan.Bristow@elections.ca> 
Sent: 28 May 2019 21:08
To: 'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: A tag looking like a BUTTON tag. Fail?

Hi all,

Links styled to look like buttons o_O

Is there anywhere in WCAG where this practice is defined as acceptable/poor/fail?

In 'Resilient web design', https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresilientwebdesign.com%2F&amp;data=01%7C01%7Ca.james%40soton.ac.uk%7Ccd419acc3b284f2dd42908d6e3a8f947%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0&amp;sdata=RCtZyQ0agVpLTPWqoD2nDEnDvYHCGUlPKXDDTvbf3Tk%3D&amp;reserved=0 Jeremy Keith talks about 'material honesty'.

The styling of A tags so they end up looking like BUTTONs must be one of the most common failures of this.

In the past I have considered 1.3.1:
"
Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.
-WCAG 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
"
noting that what is visually a 'button' and so semantically should be a BUTTON tag, when programmatically determined (by AT) is found to be an A tag, so breaking WCAG 1.3.1.

Are there more precise WCAGs that may better support my conclusion?

Am I wrong to use 1.3.1 in this way in the first place?

I would be interested in your views and thank you in advance for any.

Cheers,

Alan

PS: Useful related article:
Adam Silver - 'But sometimes links look like buttons (and buttons look like links)'
- https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fsimple-human%2Fbut-sometimes-links-look-like-buttons-and-buttons-look-like-links-9b371c57b3d2&amp;data=01%7C01%7Ca.james%40soton.ac.uk%7Ccd419acc3b284f2dd42908d6e3a8f947%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C0&amp;sdata=PnTdddES3yzev6%2FAVhWdqkKZDZ%2FpsIRQLjYmZgk2lNM%3D&amp;reserved=0

Alan Bristow
Web Programmer
Policy and Public Affairs
Elections Canada
Desk 9-A-053
30 Victoria Street, Gatineau, QC K1A 0M6 alan.bristow@elections.ca
Tel.: 819-939-2232

Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2019 20:55:41 UTC