Also don't use buttons that don't show me the link I'm navigating to. If you must have a different style, style them around an `a href`, not a `button`.
And actions should be buttons, not links. I'm looking at all of those cookie websites with a 'link' that says 'Confirm choices' and a button that says 'Allow all'. Instinctively we go to the button, not the link.
Weirdly enough I responded on the Image send to Microsoft via MS Edge article about how even Microsoft, the writer of LOTS of documentation on how to make good UIs, abuses all these things.
Now, of course we could argue about how these things just visuals, but that's not completely true. Lots of screen readers depend on the semantics of the document structure to actually identify objects correctly. Button? Action, edit, sign up, delete, .... Something that actually changes something.
No, they don't.
Aria roles are not for making one tag to work like another. (Otherwise what is the point of having different tags with different semantics?).
Aria is for making inaccessible html more accessible.
Links can not be disabled (buttons can) - so they dont rely on js to work;
Buttons rely on js (except for submitting the form).
There is no way to interchange one with another without sacrificing usability.
And actions should be buttons, not links. I'm looking at all of those cookie websites with a 'link' that says 'Confirm choices' and a button that says 'Allow all'. Instinctively we go to the button, not the link.
Weirdly enough I responded on the Image send to Microsoft via MS Edge article about how even Microsoft, the writer of LOTS of documentation on how to make good UIs, abuses all these things.
Now, of course we could argue about how these things just visuals, but that's not completely true. Lots of screen readers depend on the semantics of the document structure to actually identify objects correctly. Button? Action, edit, sign up, delete, .... Something that actually changes something.
Link: navigation...