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

> Of course, if the question was in fact about controls that act as buttons BUT are marked as links styled as buttons, yes agree it's bad, and THAT would fail 4.1.2 and possibly 2.4.4

Agreed, it's bad practice and (as a screen reader user) very irritating for actions to be bound to (programmatic) links, but does SC 4.1.2 cover what a button looks like and does? 

That is, a (programmatic) link styled to appear like a button and acting like a button does already have a programmatically determinable role - it just happens to be 'link'.

Or does the visual appearance of a control dictate its (programmatic) role in this case? That is, it might have a (programmatic) role, it just happens to be the wrong one?

And how would this same control fail 2.4.4?

Cheers,
Adam 

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 7:18 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: A tag looking like a BUTTON tag. Fail?

On 28/05/2019 22:09, ALAN SMITH wrote:
> You may also consider this a 2.4.4 Link Purpose failure.
> 
> Links go to new pages, buttons submit information or do other things.

I took the thread starter's question to be about links that are visually styled as buttons but still act as links. In those cases, I'd say 2.4.4 is not relevant/related (all other things being equal, i.e. the link text being sensible/informative in context).

Of course, if the question was in fact about controls that act as buttons BUT are marked as links styled as buttons, yes agree it's bad, and THAT would fail 4.1.2 and possibly 2.4.4

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2019 04:55:43 UTC