Extend function to optionally include commenter name in comment_reply_link

[Elpie]

Screen readers recognize links and make them searchable. Unique names facilitate that search. Links need to have unique names that are descriptive and make sense when read out of context. WordPress allows users to set the text they want to display on the comment_reply_link but then this text is repeated for every comment on a post.

WCAG Checkpoint 13.1 says: Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]

For improved accessibility it is far better to have the comment_reply_link include the commenter name. "Reply to Tom Thumb" and ideally, include a title on the link that includes both the commenter name and comment number. Users should have the option to filter for their custom text and to include (or not include) the commenter name.

At the moment, anyone who wants to present an accessible front-end cannot use threaded comments unless they are prepared to generate masses of the same, generic, unhelpful link.

Somewhat related to #10569.

Possible fix. Just gives the user a %s option in 'reply_text' which will add the persons username. Not sure if someone wants to change this to allow different tags (username, first name, last name, nickname, etc.).

Like that idea, andrewryno.

I had to use this nonsense to do it!

function txfx_reply_to_comment_link( $link, $args, $comment ) {
	if ( !empty( $comment->comment_type ) )
		return '';
	$link = str_replace( '>' . $args['reply_text'] . '<', '>' . esc_html( 'Reply to ' . $comment->comment_author ) . ' &rarr;<', $link );
	return $link;
}

add_filter( 'comment_reply_link', 'txfx_reply_to_comment_link', 10, 3 );

Thanks andrewryno. This will make a significant difference to frontend accessibility for the average user. Accessibility out of the box is far preferable to having to add custom functions on a theme by theme basis. Cheers.

This is a trivial change - any chance it can get into 3.1?

No chance for 3.1. But 3.2 dev should start soon.

Is there any chance of this getting into 3.2 or has it missed the boat again?

This should be the proper way to do it