RE: [EXTERNAL] Links and Buttons: Convention Or Violation

Are we building websites for the convenience of developers, now? 

 

In my experience, it's best to never leave decisions which may impact people
using a digital service up to developers.

 

Wireframes, no matter how 'accurate' or 'faithful'  and despite what many
people believe, do not comprise  a complete specification of a user
interface. 

 

Focus mapping, technical design, interaction design, information
architecture design, naming conventions etc. all contribute to the final
product.

 

If the developer is to implement this or that component in a specific way,
then they need to be directed to do so.

 

Design, design, design is where accessibility begins . every decision left
in the hands of developers is where accessibility goes to die.

 

 

 

From: Jim Homme <jhomme@benderconsult.com> 
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 2:04 AM
To: Mark Magennis <Mark.Magennis@skillsoft.com>; Wai Interest Group
(w3c-wai-ig@w3.org) <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Links and Buttons: Convention Or Violation

 

Hi,

Maybe, practically for developers, if it looks like a link, use an anchor,
and if it looks like a button, use a button tag. I'm trying to settle on
advice I can give most of the time.

 

Jim

 

Jim Homme, Senior Accessibility Consultant

Bender Consulting Services, Inc. 

#Bender30 #PaychecksNotPity #CompetitiveJobsMeanFreedom

 <mailto:|jhomme@benderconsult.com> |jhomme@benderconsult.com |
<https://benderconsult.com/> benderconsult.com

 



 

From: Mark Magennis <Mark.Magennis@skillsoft.com> 
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 7:45 AM
To: Wai Interest Group (w3c-wai-ig@w3.org) <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Links and Buttons: Convention Or Violation

 

I'm open to correction but as I see it there are different schools of
thought and I've seen all of them supported by different accessibility
practitioners.

 

1.	The role should reflect the behaviour but it's not critical that the
appearance reflects the role. So something that behaves like a link must be
exposed as a link but can be visually styled to look like a button if that's
what the UX designer wants. 

2.	The role should reflect the visual appearance, even if the behavior
doesn't match the semantics of the role. So if it looks like a button it
should be exposed as a button, even if it actually behaves like a link.

3.	The role and appearance should both reflect the behavior. So if it
behaves like a link, it must be exposed as a link and also must look like a
link and not like a button.

 

3 would be my preference and I would accept 1 but not 2. It sound like you
would accept 2 but not 1.

 

Mark

 

  _____  

From: Jim Homme <jhomme@benderconsult.com <mailto:jhomme@benderconsult.com>
>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2026 19:17
To: Wai Interest Group (w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> )
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Links and Buttons: Convention Or Violation 

 

Hi,

I usually think of hyperlinks as going to new pages and buttons as starting
a process. For example, fill out a form and click a button, rather than a
hyperlink.

 

On a page I'm looking at, the styling looks like a button, and the tag is an
anchor with a button role. I know that's symantically incorrect. If the
anchor becomes a button tag, the style and tag will agree, but clicking it
would go to a new page if the underlying code was changed. How should the
anchor and the styling be handled if the developer wants this to look like a
button and how should it be handled if they want it to look like a link. I'm
assuming that if I were the developer, one choice is to let the browser do
what it wants to the link.

 

Thanks.

 

Jim

Jim Homme, Senior Accessibility Consultant

Bender Consulting Services, Inc. 

#Bender30 #PaychecksNotPity #CompetitiveJobsMeanFreedom

 <mailto:|jhomme@benderconsult.com> | <mailto:|jhomme@benderconsult.com>
jhomme@benderconsult.com | <https://benderconsult.com/> benderconsult.com