Where Does “Learn More” Go? Writing Clear Link Text

Imagine you are trying to register for a talk. The event page has three cards: an introduction, directions, and registration information. Each ends with “Learn more.” You want to know whether walk-in registration is available, but first you have to guess which card holds the answer.

Change the third link to “View registration options and deadline,” and the next step becomes clearer. Before leaving the page, readers can decide whether the destination is worth visiting. Link text gives them a description before they get there.

Name what the reader will find

When drafting a link, remove phrases such as “click here,” “go to,” and “learn more,” then see what remains. If nothing does, the destination probably has not been described yet. This is an editorial check, not a test of accessibility conformance.

The examples below are hypothetical. Open the destination before changing its label and confirm that it actually contains the promised information. More appealing wording must not invent answers the page does not provide.

These changes add information needed to make a choice. Downloads especially need a clear object: an editable blank form, a completed example, and a read-only instruction document serve different needs.

“Learn more” is not universally prohibited

W3C’s explanation of WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 2.4.4 allows link purpose to be determined from the text alone or together with programmatically determined context. It is a Level A criterion. The document also explains that assistive technology can present a list of page links for users to choose from.

The words “Learn more” alone therefore do not establish a failure. But a heading that looks nearby in a design does not necessarily provide an adequate programmatic relationship. Evaluation requires examining the markup and context, not just a screenshot.

Criterion 2.4.9, at Level AAA, requires a mechanism for identifying purpose from link text alone, with an exception where the purpose would be ambiguous to users in general. Do not collapse the two levels into a claim that every link must always stand on its own.

Clear can still be short

Turning every link into a full sentence can also make a page harder to read. Suppose a report is available in three formats. With its name clearly provided in an appropriate structure, “PDF,” “HTML,” and “Audio” can distinguish the options. Repeating the full report title three times is unnecessary.

If the same section contains this year’s report and last year’s, however, the year matters. Decide what to retain by looking at the choices readers must distinguish: keep the format for different versions of one document, and the year for annual editions.

Not every detail belongs inside the clickable text. File size, the date information was updated, and the intended audience can sit alongside it where useful. The link identifies the destination; nearby text can explain additional conditions.

Finish by visiting the destination

After editing, copy the page’s link labels into a separate list. Which identical labels lead to different places? Which promise registration but open an event introduction? Start there. Listing the text separately helps reveal problems, but does not replace a complete accessibility review.

Then open each link and compare its wording with the destination’s title and content. If “Download the blank application form” leads to two more pages before the file appears, change the route or call the link “View application documents.” The choice depends on whether you can change the flow.

After readers follow “View registration options and deadline,” the next page should let them find both. Those few words have already made a promise on the site’s behalf.