How to make customer links say where they lead

Start with the destination, not the button shape

A link is a promise about the next place a customer will reach. On a service page, ‘Learn more’ may look harmless because a nearby card names the service. In a list of links presented by assistive technology, or after the page is rearranged for mobile, that wording can lose its explanation. W3C's link-purpose guidance allows purpose to be determined from link text or programmatically determined context at Level A, and recommends meaningful link text by itself whenever possible. The editorial choice is therefore to name the destination or action directly. A customer should be able to distinguish a pricing guide, an eligibility page, a booking form and an external policy before opening any of them.

Begin an audit with real destinations, not a list of generic words to replace blindly. Record the visible label, accessible name, surrounding heading, actual URL and page title for each link on a representative journey. Include the homepage route to a service, a service page to its enquiry form, a resource list to a document, and the order confirmation page to order details. The same words can be appropriate in one context and ambiguous in another. ‘View order 4832’ is useful if the linked page is that order; ‘View details’ repeated across several orders is not. If a destination is not yet known, fix the destination design before polishing its label.

Write a short label that survives isolation

A useful pattern is an action plus a specific object: ‘Check delivery options’, ‘Download the warranty terms’, or ‘Start a support request’. When a resource title already names the destination, linking that title can be enough. Do not stuff every link with the company name, the entire page heading and a long sales claim. The goal is a decision, not a slogan. If two links have different destinations, their labels should reveal the difference; if they lead to the same destination and perform the same function, inconsistent labels can create doubt. W3C's stronger link-only criterion describes why links that make sense outside surrounding text are easier to use, though it is a Level AAA criterion rather than the Level A rule.

Consider a bilingual page listing three downloadable documents. Three identical links labelled ‘PDF’ force a person to reconstruct each link's surrounding row. Use the document name in the link, and add the format where it changes the decision: ‘Download service terms (PDF)’. If there are two formats of the same document, distinguish ‘Service terms (PDF)’ and ‘Service terms (HTML)’. A link that opens an external provider should identify the provider or destination when that affects trust or the task. Do not promise a download when the link actually opens a landing page, and do not call a form ‘Contact us’ if it only starts an account sign-in. Match the label to the observed target.

Check the two languages as separate journeys

English and Traditional Chinese labels need equivalent decisions, not word-for-word symmetry. ‘Request a quotation’ and ‘索取報價’ can describe the same form, while a literal translation that sounds like general company information can send readers down the wrong route. Check whether the target itself has a matching-language version. If the Chinese link opens an English-only document, make that limitation clear where relevant; do not imply translated content exists. For each language, compare the link with the destination heading, action available there, document type and any sign-in requirement. Keep product names and established terms consistent, but prefer ordinary customer wording over internal labels such as ‘resource centre asset’ or ‘lead capture’.

The accessible name deserves a separate check. If an icon or image is the only linked content, it still needs a name that describes the destination or action; a filename or ‘arrow’ says little. If a visible label exists, do not add a conflicting hidden name that causes speech-input users to say one phrase while assistive technology exposes another. A link styled as a button remains a link if it navigates to another URL; a control that submits or changes the current page normally needs button behaviour. This distinction matters because the promise made by the label should match what happens after activation. Review the rendered page rather than assuming the source content system preserved the intended wording.

Work through a service-page example

Imagine a Hong Kong repair business with three service cards: inspection, on-site repair and maintenance plan. Each card has a link labelled ‘Details’. A customer wanting a one-time inspection hears three indistinguishable links in a screen-reader list and cannot tell which one opens the right service. Replace the labels with ‘View inspection service’, ‘View on-site repair’ and ‘Compare maintenance plans’. On the destination, check that the first page really explains inspection scope, the second covers repair, and the third provides a comparison rather than an immediate sales form. If the plan page has no comparison, change either the page or the label. That is a content and journey decision, not a cosmetic copy edit.

Now test an actual route. Navigate by keyboard from the page heading through the cards, and activate each link. Use a screen reader's links list or equivalent accessibility inspection to hear names without the visual card. Check at mobile width, where card headings and links may be separated by layout. Finally switch language and repeat, because a corrected English label does not repair a Chinese one. Record any mismatch with the exact source page, label, destination and expected wording. A content editor can own the wording and target checks; a developer may need to fix accessible-name markup or a component that reuses one generic label everywhere.

Make labels stay true after content changes

Link quality can decay when a document is renamed, a service is merged, or a URL is redirected. Put label and destination review into the same change request rather than treating redirects as proof that the link remains useful. A redirect to a generic homepage can technically work while breaking the customer's expectation. Sample the most important journeys after each content release: enquiry, booking, payment help and account support. Keep an inventory of repeated components and document links, with an owner for both languages. The result to seek is simple: from the label and available context, a customer can predict the next page, and the next page fulfils that prediction.

A small team need not rewrite every archive page at once. Start with pages where a wrong choice costs the customer time or discloses a limitation too late: application forms, policy documents, fees and order actions. Fix the highest-use repeated component next, because one change can improve many pages. After that, review older editorial links when the destination changes or the page is refreshed. Avoid reporting a success rate unless you measured real customer behaviour; the acceptance evidence here is the destination audit and direct usability check. A clear link is useful because it lets people choose deliberately, not because a generic click metric went up.

One useful final review is to ask someone unfamiliar with the site to read a plain list of link names and predict each destination. Do this without showing the surrounding marketing copy first. After they choose, show the target page and ask whether the page matches the prediction. This catches a common mismatch: a label such as ‘See prices’ opens a general enquiry form with no prices. The repair is to publish the price information, or change the label so it accurately describes the form. Repeat the exercise in Traditional Chinese with a reader who uses that version naturally. The check does not require a large research project; it requires an honest record of what the link promised, what the destination supplied, and which part of the journey was corrected. This also gives the editor a clear acceptance test for future redirects.

For an editorial handoff, make each unresolved link a concrete issue rather than a vague request to improve accessibility. Give the content owner the current label, the intended customer task, the actual target, the proposed English and Chinese labels, and the result of opening the link. If a document has been retired, decide whether a current equivalent exists before changing its name. If there is no equivalent, remove the misleading link or explain the unavailable resource in the page copy. Apply the same discipline to campaign links: a campaign may end while its link remains in an email or archived article, so the destination must still answer the promise or explain the change. Treat the visible label and accessible name as one reviewed pair. When the component is reused, spot-check several rendered pages after the fix, since a template change may accidentally change labels in a different context.

If the site switches language while preserving the current page, verify that a link in the translated page still reaches the corresponding resource. A translated label pointing to an unrelated English page is a destination error, even if its words sound polished.