A customer portal may show three identical download icons beside three documents. A user navigating by button name needs to know which one downloads the quote. Commission meaningful names tied to the document, with a stable relationship between visible action and accessible name.
Primary evidence and claim boundaries
The W3C button pattern requires an accessible label, supplied by button text or naming attributes such as aria-labelledby or aria-label. Button activation and focus behaviour also depend on the action. Primary reference · Read 18 October 2026.
Filled acceptance example
Original synthetic teaching scenario, not a client case, provider integration test or business result. The example policy needs the actual owner’s approval; scroll the table on narrow screens.
| Input and state | Declared check | Expected output and decision |
|---|---|---|
| Q18 quote, P7 plan, T2 terms; each icon named “Download” | Button list contains three identical names | Cannot identify target without extra context; improve the contract |
| Q18 icon named “Download quote Q18” | Name identifies action+document | Expected Q18 action; visible context still agrees |
| aria-labelledby points to missing idquote18 | No valid referenced label or fallback in this fixture | Reject missing name evidence |
| Rename visible document toQ19 but keep labelQ18 | Names disagree with current object | Reject stale label before release |
Practical handover procedure
- List each repeated icon action and its object ID/title. Decide whether visible text, an associated heading or an explicit label will supply the name.
- Inspect the actual accessibility tree and navigate by role/name in the supported browser. Activate only synthetic test actions and verify the chosen object.
- Repeat after renaming, sorting and removing a document. A test that only counts non-empty attributes will miss names that identify the wrong file.
Interpret the outcome
The key improvement is object identity, not adding “button” to every label. Q18 andQ19 must remain distinguishable after a content update. The missing-ID row also shows why source markup alone cannot replace the browser’s computed accessibility representation.
Acceptance decision
Require a meaningful computed name and matching actual action for every repeated command. Verify keyboard activation and expected focus continuation.
Limits and unverified work
Synthetic documents only; no real download, enquiry or deletion. This is a supplier acceptance specification, not a tested component or full conformance statement.
Download the filled bilingual acceptance record — Contains the inputs, steps, expectations and limits. This is a teaching record, not an executable production integration.