ACT Rule b20e66 · proposed
Links with identical accessible names have equivalent purpose
Two links named the same thing anywhere on the page ought to go to the same place. This rule finds duplicate link names and compares where they lead.
A tool can decide this one on its own, which is why it turns up in scanner output. The rule is proposed, so it has not yet been implemented in full by a tool and reviewed by a W3C working group, and the wording can still change.
What passing this rule proves
When this rule fails, 2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only) is not satisfied, and that half is certain. When it passes, W3C's own outcome mapping says the criterion still needs further testing. So a green result here is evidence that one specific thing is not broken, and it is the answer W3C gives on 59 of its 87 live rules.
Same shape as its Level A cousin and a wider net, because this one drops the requirement that the links share a context. Whether two different pages count as equivalent is a judgment about content, so the tool stops where the reading starts.
The criteria this rule is a test for
These are the criteria the rule names as its own conformance requirement. Each one is a far bigger question than this rule asks, and our page for it sets out what the whole criterion covers.
- 2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only) Level AAA
The normative rule text lives at W3C
What the rule applies to, and exactly what it expects, is published by W3C and can change. We link to it rather than restate it, so nothing here can quietly fall out of date against the source. Read rule b20e66 at W3C.
Every control needs a name that assistive technology can read
Every control has a name that assistive technology reads out. It is not always the text you see. The browser works it out in a fixed order. An aria-labelledby reference wins first, then aria-label, then the element's own content or its associated label, then a title attribute as a last resort.
A screen reader user moving through a page by control hears these names and nothing else. If the name is empty, they hear only the role. A button with no name is a button with no idea what it does.
Icon-only buttons are the common case. The icon carries the meaning visually and leaves nothing behind for the name. The control announces as just a button with no function described.
Fixes that satisfy it
If this rule fails on your site, these are the techniques that put it right.
Other rules W3C files under the same criteria
Each of these asks a different question about the same part of the standard. Passing all of them is still not the same as satisfying the criterion.
- Link has non-empty accessible name A tool can check this
- Link in context is descriptive A tool can check this
- Links with identical accessible names and same context serve equivalent purpose A tool finds candidates, you decide
- Link is descriptive A tool can check this
All 87 ACT rules are grouped by the criteria they test, and 24 of them decide nothing about WCAG on their own. Run a free scan to see which of these your own pages trip.