[chore] Accessible links 1

[jsoref]

The web isn't limited to people who read content with their eyes. Some users use screen readers and other accessibility agents and some people have other reasons for appreciating descriptive links. To that end, check-spelling/spell-check-this includes a rule:

Do not use (click) here links

For more information, see:

• https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
• https://webaim.org/techniques/hypertext/link_text
• https://granicus.com/blog/why-click-here-links-are-bad/
• https://heyoka.medium.com/dont-use-click-here-f32f445d1021

(?i)(?:>|\[)(?:(?:click |)here|link|(?:read |)more)(?:</|\]\()

The changes included here are designed to help users who benefit from descriptive links

[chalin]

Hi @jsoref : while we greatly appreciate your contributions, there's a lot to juggle these days. I've marked all of your Accessibility PRs as blocked, just as a reminder that we'll be going through these carefully and slowly as time permits.

Also as I mentioned in #6051 (review), avoid "See [link] for xyz". Instead prefer a the form: "For xyz, see [link]".

Thanks again for your contributions. Looking forward to reviewing when we can.

[svrnm]

Hi @jsoref : while we greatly appreciate your contributions, there's a lot to juggle these days. I've marked all of your Accessibility PRs as blocked, just as a reminder that we'll be going through these carefully and slowly as time permits.

Also as I mentioned in #6051 (review), avoid "See [link] for xyz". Instead prefer a the form: "For xyz, see [link]".

Thanks again for your contributions. Looking forward to reviewing when we can.

Hey @jsoref, just to reinforce this message: we are happy about your eagerness to help, but since you provide those PRs as a testing ground for your tool, we would appreciated, if you would have raised an issue first and asked us if and how we do this on our terms. We can still do this, but I recommend that if you do the same for other OSS projects as well, you ask first, as this will increase your chance of having your PRs received positively and merged eventually

I am also saying that, because we had similar situations in the past where people tried out their tools on our repositories. So, we are especially wary if those tools have a commercial interest and they aim to list our project as "user" for their tool. Because of that:

• please disclose to us, if your goal is purely to stay open source with your tool or if you have any plans to productize it.
• please note, that we review your PRs as if you would have created them without any tooling and on merit. A merged PR does not mean that we endorse your tool and if you'd like to list our project as one where your tool was used, you need to ask for explicit permission.

[jsoref]

I have absolutely no intention to monetize. It's used by a number of major projects.

My goal is simply to get rid of spelling errors and related things. Preferably for people to get rid of them without me so that when I visit a project I don't run into spelling errors in the first place.