When Should a Link Open in a New Tab
A link that opens in a new tab takes a small decision away from the person using the site. Sometimes that helps. Someone filling in a form may need the instructions open beside it. Someone comparing three products may want all three where they can see them.
Most of the time it adds another place to manage and makes it harder to get back to where the task started. The better default is to let links behave normally and let the reader open a second tab when they want one.
The question worth asking is not whether a link points somewhere else on your site or off it. It is whether the person needs the destination and the current page at the same time.
What the Accessibility Guidance Says
A common claim is that opening a new tab breaks WCAG. It does not, and getting this right matters, because an overstated rule is easy to dismiss entirely.
The W3C technique on opening new windows and tabs only when necessary is explicit about its own status: “This technique is advisory. While indicating that a link or button ‘opens in a new window or tab’ is considered good practice, it is not necessary to meet the requirements of any particular success criterion.”
So a new tab is not an automatic failure. What the guidance does describe is a real cost. An unexpected change of context can disorient someone who cannot easily perceive that it happened. G200 gives form help as its clear example: context-sensitive help can open in a new window “to prevent the loss of any form data that has already been entered.”
The companion technique, giving users advance warning, is also advisory, and its test is the practical part. It asks for both a visual warning and one spoken by assistive technology. Its own example is as plain as it sounds: “All about Knitting (opens in new window).”
That pairing is the whole accessibility position. Use a new tab when it serves the task, and say so before the person clicks.
What the Research Found
Nielsen Norman Group’s research on opening links in new browser windows and tabs is more useful than a blanket rule, because it splits the question by what the person was doing.
New tabs helped when people were comparing options across several pages, combining information from more than one source, parking a page to come back to, or using the original page as a launching point. They frustrated people during a quick look-up before returning, during a multistep workflow that depended on the Back button, and when a lot of tabs were already open.
Their finding on phones is worth quoting directly: “Mobile users were more annoyed when links opened in new tabs, as they couldn’t use the Back button to return to the previous screen and accessing the previous tab was difficult.”
What We Have Seen in Usability Testing
In usability testing, we have watched people lose their place after an unexpected new tab opens. They read the destination, reach for the Back button to return, and find that it does not take them back to the page where they began. Then they have to notice that another tab opened, find the original page, and switch back.
Browser tabs are more familiar now than when we started watching people do this, and the interruption is small. It is still an interruption in a task that would otherwise have been continuous. It can also be easy to miss that a new tab opened at all, particularly on a phone, where open tabs are not visible while someone is looking at the page in front of them.
None of that makes new tabs wrong. It makes them a choice worth making deliberately rather than by rule.
Two Questions That Decide It
Before changing a link, answer two things about the person using it.
Which link behavior fits which task
Needs both open · Nothing is lost
A new tab may help. Test it
Comparing products, plans or documents. Worth trying with real users rather than assuming, because it depends on how people work through the set.
Needs both open · Work would be lost
New tab, with a visible warning
Form help while the form is half-filled. The clearest case there is, and the one G200 uses as its example.
One page at a time · Nothing is lost
Same tab
Ordinary navigation, a policy page, a source someone wants to glance at. Back works, and the reader can still open a tab themselves if they want one.
One page at a time · Work would be lost
Preserve the state, if you control it
A second tab here is covering for a form that discards what someone typed. Where you can fix that, fix it. Where you cannot, a warned new tab is the fallback.
One case does not fit the grid, and it is worth naming. A link that ends a signed-in session is not avoidable loss, it is a legitimate boundary. There is nothing to fix in the interface, so a new tab with a warning is a reasonable answer even when the person only needs one page at a time.
Sensible Defaults by Task
| What the person is doing | Default | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Reading an article, service page or policy | Same tab | Back returns them to where they started |
| Glancing at a source, then carrying on | Same tab | A new tab makes a quick look harder to close and come back from |
| Working through a form or checkout | Same tab | Keep the expected Back path. Fix form state rather than leaning on a second tab |
| Reading help while a form sits half-finished | New tab, with a warning | They need both pieces of information at once |
| Comparing products, plans or locations | Test it. A new tab may help | People often use the list as a launching point |
| Following a link that would end a signed-in session | New tab, with a warning | The original session stays available |
| Opening a PDF on a desktop | Often a new tab | People may want to print it or read it beside the original page |
| Opening a PDF on a phone | Prefer an HTML alternative. If the PDF is required, test it on the device | Behavior varies by browser, so this is worth checking rather than ruling. Name the file type in the link either way |
How to Write the Link
target="_blank" changes the behavior. The visible warning is the part teams forget.
An ordinary link needs nothing:
<a href="/privacy-policy/">Read the privacy policy</a>A link that opens a new tab should say so in words a reader and a screen reader both get:
<a href="/form-help/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
Form help (opens in a new tab)
</a>If your design uses an external-link icon, do not let the icon carry the message alone. G201’s second example pairs an SVG with aria-describedby so the warning reaches assistive technology too. An icon with no text equivalent tells only the people who can see it.
This is where we would push hardest. If a site has a rule that external links open in new tabs, that rule needs a short disclaimer on the link. Applying the behavior site-wide without a warning is a pattern we run into often in link audits, and it is the version most likely to cause the disorientation described above.
How We Audit Links
We do not strip every target="_blank" on sight. The attribute is not the problem; using it without a reason is.
-
Group the links by task
Navigation, sources, downloads, product comparison, form help, links that end a session, embedded tools. The right answer differs by group, so a single site-wide rule is usually wrong for most of them.
-
Does the person need both pages at once?
If not, the default is a normal link. This resolves most of them.
-
Can the interface preserve their work instead?
If it can, fix that instead. A new tab used to protect unsaved data is covering for something else.
-
Label and test whatever survives
A visible warning in the link text, then check it on a phone, with a keyboard, and with a screen reader.
A new tab should survive two questions: does the person need both pages open, and can the interface preserve their work without a second tab? If the answer to both is no, use a normal link.
When a second tab genuinely helps, make that clear before the person clicks.
If you are reviewing a site’s navigation or accessibility patterns, we can help work out where link behavior is supporting the task and where it is getting in the way. Start a conversation.