The Hacker News discussion revolves around the W3C's recommendation to avoid generic link text like "click here" and instead encourage descriptive link text. The ensuing conversation touches on a variety of facets, including user preference, the nature of web standards, accessibility, and the evolution of web design.
User Preference and Disagreement with W3C Recommendations
A significant portion of the discussion highlights a divergence in user preference regarding link text. While the W3C suggests more descriptive phrases, many users express a personal, and sometimes strong, preference for the W3C's "unrecommended" styles, even if they can't articulate a clear reason. Some find the W3C's suggested phrasing to be less direct or evocative.
- stogot states, "I actually prefer what they don’t recommend, and I don’t know why."
- chungy echoes this sentiment, saying, "Same here. This is just a style guideline that W3C has no real business in determining."
- lionkor finds the W3C's recommended phrasing to feel more like a "link to a Wikipedia article", rather than a definitive call to action.
- mannykannot, however, finds the phrase "click here" more effective, noting, "I do too - it tells the reader what they have to do in order to bring about the desired result, more directly than do any of the alternatives."
The Nature of W3C Guidelines and Standards
Several users emphasize that the W3C's recommendations are not binding standards but rather "informative bits of wisdom." This distinction is crucial for those who feel the W3C is overstepping its boundaries.
- sham1 clarifies this point: "Well good thing that this style guide is just what W3C considers best practices and is not a standard."
- The W3C's own quote is later reiterated: "> While the tips are carefully reviewed by the participants of the group, they should not be seen as anything else than informative bits of wisdom, and especially, they are not normative W3C technical specifications."
Accessibility Concerns and Screen Readers
A central theme is the impact of link text on accessibility, particularly for users of screen readers. The primary argument against "click here" is that it provides no context when a list of links is presented without surrounding text, making it difficult for visually impaired users to navigate or understand the purpose of a link.
- robin_reala explains: "If you think about this from an accessibility point of view, screen readers for blind users present a linear view of a page. To escape from the linear view, they also typically allow users to access lists of elements like headers and links, out of context of their original position. If every link is labelled “click here” then you’re effectively removing non-linear access from those users."
- micromacrofoot elaborates on a similar point: "imagine not being able to see and tabbing through a series of 'click here's'."
- charcircuit questions how screen readers would work if they didn't read surrounding text, asking, "How do you imagine that working? By reading surrounding text or by reading the URL?"
- nulbyte succinctly captures the issue: "Use a screen reader. Tab through the links. All you hear is, 'click here.' That's not helpful." He also adds, "Build a search engine. What information does 'click here' offer your index?"
The Role of Context and Descriptive Link Text
The discussion frequently returns to the importance of context provided by link text. Many argue that descriptive links are essential for both accessibility and SEO, enabling users and search engines to understand the destination and purpose of a hyperlink.
- micromacrofoot advocates for links that describe what you get: "it's a little pedantic, but hyperlinks should describe what you get when you click on them."
- smjburton highlights the SEO benefits: "Google, Bing, and other crawlers use link context (e.g. 'lawn care in new jersey' vs 'click here') to establish authority/relevance for the site being linked to."
- kqr expresses a preference for scanning link-formatted words: "when I'm looking for a link, I want to read only the link-formatted words on a page to find the link I'm interested in. 'Download Amaya' would be a great link. Just 'Amaya' (unless leading to a page with information about Amaya, I suppose) or 'click here' are not."
- hnlmorg suggests a clear and informative approach: "You can download the Amaya Browser from [Amaya’s download page]. It’s both explicit for sighted reader and screen readers too."
Debates on Screen Reader Functionality and Developer Responsibility
A significant part of the conversation concerns the efficacy and development of screen reader software. Some users criticize screen readers as being outdated or unhelpful, while others defend their current functionality and place the onus on web developers to adhere to accessibility standards.
- snickerdoodle12 expresses frustration: "The hilarious part is that we somehow wound up in a situation where the screen readers are useless pieces of crap but instead of fixing those every developer making a website is held responsible instead."
- rpd9803 counters this, stating, "As a developer you should be embarrassed if your site isn't accessible to screen readers, its not exactly hard to add some aria roles and alt tags."
- jodrellblank argues against blaming screen readers: "Why is it embarrassing to have to code against standardised accessibility interfaces so that other tools using those interfaces can function? Is it embarrassing to have to code against a database or filesystem interface to persist data, or a graphics interface to show pictures?"
- Cthulhu_ points out the potential for LLMs to improve screen reader capabilities, noting, "I had some classes in uni where we weren't allowed to use our laptop screens, and I bet I could have gotten away with having my hands inside a half closed laptop with an airpod in my ear scrolling HN/Reddit while the professor droned on for an hour."
The Distinction Between Links and Buttons, and the "Call to Action" Concept
The discussion also touches upon the semantic difference between links and buttons, and how the "call to action" (CTA) paradigm influences link text choices. Some feel that actions like initiating a download or submitting a form should be handled by buttons, not links.
- baggachipz posits: "I feel like a link should be used for more information retrieval; therefore, the link should be descriptive of its forthcoming content. Instead of using a link as a call to action, shouldn't it be a button? This feels more 'pure' in the semantic web context."
- Cthulhu_ agrees: "If the action is to do something else, like start a download or submit a form, it should be a button."
The Evolution of Web Design and Legacy Advice
The age of the W3C advice (2001) is brought up, with some users noting that web design conventions and user expectations have evolved significantly since then. The advice might be considered dated by some, though the core principles of clarity and accessibility remain relevant.
- piqufoh points out, "this advice is 24 years old (and I think largely ignored)."
- roryirvine reflects on the historical advice: "Yes, this was common web design advice in the mid 90s, though often people's first response was to simply replace 'Click here to...' with 'Follow this link to...', which was almost as bad."
- xnx references Jakob Nielsen's 1996 recommendations, indicating these principles have a longer history.
Broader Implications and the Future of the Web
The conversation extends to encompass the broader implications of web design choices, including the role of LLMs, the potential for accessibility tooling, and the ongoing tension between design trends and functional usability.
- MangoToupe suggests a need for more accessible accessibility tooling, perhaps with LLM assistance.
- hombre_fatal offers concrete ideas for browser plugins to aid in accessibility testing.
- echelon and bigbuppo engage in a side discussion about the general perception and adoption of AI, highlighting that perceived consensus can be influenced by community echo chambers.
- rendaw questions the point at which accessibility efforts might paradoxically decrease overall accessibility.