Yeah, Wikipedia, but also many news sites use this style. It is mostly not a call to action, but additional optional information you can check out. That's why it feels wrong to use it in these cases. I think that some of the examples are outdated compared to how people format the web nowadays.

Well good thing that this style guide is just what W3C considers best practices and is not a standard.

> While the tips are carefully reviewed by the participants of the group, they should not be seen as anything else than informative bits of wisdom, and especially, they are not normative W3C technical specifications.

We shouldn't be so sensitive.

> [Our published tips] should not be seen as anything else than informative bits of wisdom, and especially, they are not normative W3C technical specifications.

Sounds equivalent to saying we shouldnt the words "he" or "she" because some people identify with neither. Exclusionary towards people of different mouse abilities.

I'm fully aware. I grew up with a kid who was almost blind.

Images can contain alt text metadata, but links can't. Why? Because some genius with an opinion decided links aren't allowed to have alt-text. The rationale for why links can't contain alt-text:

  Using alt text on a hyperlink would be redundant and potentially confusing for screen reader users, who may hear both the hyperlink text and the alt text

Except we see here a great example of why this is wrong. We could tell a sighted user to click here, and simultaneously add alt-text that describes "this is a hyperlink which downloads the software". (which, by the way, would also help sighted people!!) An author drafting the link could choose what text is shown for the link, and what (if any) is shown for the alt-text. It doesn't have to be confusing.

Yet with the current mandatory design examples, it is confusing! The suggested link text is just the name of the product!! What's the link going to do when you click it? Download something? Render a page? Show an image? Something else? How is that helping a blind person OR a non-blind person?!

The spec should allow you to decide how the content is presented, in a way that works for both blind and non-blind people. But we see here that, in order to make a "beautiful engineering design" that supports blind and sighted people, it's actually making it harder for both. If they took away their arbitrary restriction, the content creator could be free to craft it however makes sense, in a way that supports all people well, rather than all people poorly.