A link is a small promise. Before following it, a reader should have a reasonable idea of what comes next: a timetable, a workshop description or directions to a studio. Reviewing that promise means checking the destination, not merely replacing every short label with a longer one. “Read more” can work with the right context; a confidently specific label can still mislead if nobody has checked where it leads.
For a small-company editor, the useful deliverable is a short inventory of proposed wording, supporting evidence and unresolved questions. The proposed MAJLS link-purpose review card below is an editorial worksheet, not a compliance certification or an implemented software integration. It keeps changes narrow enough for a page owner to approve.
Use descriptive wording without overstating the rule
WCAG 2.4.4, Link Purpose (In Context), is a Level A criterion. It permits a link’s purpose to be determined from its text alone or from its text together with programmatically determined link context, with an exception where the purpose would be ambiguous to users in general. It does not say that every “Read more” link fails. W3C’s explanation includes article summaries whose enclosing paragraphs supply context. [1]
Writing text that works on its own is nevertheless a useful editorial default. Someone scanning links can distinguish “About the glazing workshop” from “About the hand-building workshop” without repeatedly finding the surrounding description. This preference does not turn the separate Level AAA link-only criterion into a requirement for this review.
Context must be more than visually nearby. An enclosing sentence, paragraph or list item, appropriate table relationships, or an explicit programmatic association can provide context. A heading positioned above a card is not automatically associated with its link simply because the layout looks convincing. Inspect the actual markup and relationships before recording that context as available. W3C techniques are informative examples of ways to meet WCAG, not mandatory implementations. [1][2]
Start with the destination, not the replacement phrase
Take an authorized review copy of the information page. Record each current label and its existing target without changing either. Open the intended destination and describe what it actually offers. Is it a schedule to consult, an explanation to read or a file to obtain? Compare that purpose with what the label promises.
If the destination cannot be inspected, record the uncertainty. Do not guess from a filename, an old campaign title or the words around the link. The criterion’s ambiguity exception is not a shortcut for an editor who has not verified a target.
Filled example: a community pottery studio
This is a synthetic page and a filled illustrative review card. Destination checks and markup facts below are stipulated facts of the fictional example, not claims about a live studio. All proposed labels are plain example text: none is an invented working link or a promised download. Sara is the illustrative page owner and wording approver.
| Current text or content | Destination purpose verified in the example | Programmatically associated context in the example | Proposed visible text or alternative | Exception and owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Click here | Class timetable page showing available pottery sessions | Enclosing paragraph discusses class times | View the pottery class timetable | Ready for wording approval; Sara |
| Download | An actual PDF within the fictional scenario containing the studio materials list | Same list item names materials to bring | Studio materials list (PDF) | File type verified for this example; Sara |
| Read more | Description of the glazing workshop | Enclosing paragraph names and summarizes glazing | About the glazing workshop | Context may already establish purpose; clearer standalone wording proposed; Sara |
| Read more | Description of the hand-building workshop | Enclosing paragraph names and summarizes hand-building | About the hand-building workshop | Different destination needs distinguishable wording; Sara |
| Image-only red map pin, with no alternative | Studio location page with address and directions | None recorded | No visible-text change proposed; image alternative: Find the studio | Missing function-based alternative requires implementation review; Sara |
| More | Unknown; destination not available for inspection | Nearby visual heading only; no association verified | Held: no replacement proposed | Sara must confirm purpose before wording approval |
The card separates a better phrase from evidence that the phrase is true. “Studio materials list (PDF)” is useful here because the example file really is a PDF. H30 notes that file-type information is often useful, but it is not universally required by this success criterion. [2]
Treat linked images according to their function
For the image-only location link, describing “a red map pin” identifies appearance rather than the action available. H30 explains that an image which is the only content of a link needs a text alternative describing the link’s unique function. “Find the studio” answers that functional question. This is a link-purpose decision, not a general product-image description exercise. [2]
If image and text form a single link, an empty image alt can avoid repetition when the text already expresses the purpose and the image adds no information. Do not erase meaningful additional information merely to shorten the accessible name: an image conveying extra information still needs an appropriate alternative. [2]
Check the wording in two views
First, read the proposed labels as a list. Can you distinguish the destinations and predict what each offers? Treat this as a useful, stricter editorial screen, not the complete Level A conformance test.
Then review the page in context. Confirm any context relied upon is programmatically determined, compare each label with its actual destination, and inspect rendered accessible names where a review environment is available. Record discrepancies between visible wording and what the browser exposes; do not assume a label in a worksheet proves the rendered result.
For this illustrative handoff, rendered-name inspection and assistive-technology testing remain pending. There is no tested live page here and no fabricated pass. The content assistant prepares the inventory and holds the unknown destination. Sara approves the wording before an authorized person changes content. Neither preparation nor approval silently changes targets, navigation or live pages. This is not a broken-link queue, redirect map or structural reordering exercise: its bounded output is a truthful wording proposal with owned exceptions.