-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
[b49b2e] Accessibility support note on empty headings being exposed #2351
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for act-rules ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
WilcoFiers
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is fine, but can you also open an accessibility support issue related to this with the test information showing what the problem was so we can re-test it in the future?
|
I Opened #2361. Can we proceed with this now? |
|
Call for Review ends on January 15th. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR is not solving the original issue I raised. I'd like to discuss it more during our CG meeting because, although we now have an accessibility support note, the inapplicable examples 3 and 4 still fail WCAG for certain UA/AT combinations. With this rule, we are effectively forcing authoring tools not to report the issue, since an inapplicable result cannot fail for consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@giacomo-petri The group has discussed this and concluded that this is not a failure of 2.4.6. It is appropriate to and necessary to have these as inapplicable examples. Arguably these can be a 1.3.1 issues, but since the rule does not map to 1.3.1 there is no reason tools couldn't fail it there.
See the conclusion here: #2258 (comment)
If you feel strongly we need to discuss this again I think we can, but the task force came to this conclusion unanimously, so I'm personally not very keen to reopen that conversation again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see that the request related to this in WCAG 2.x is still open and marked as "in progress". Based on the discussion, it seems anything but resolved. Additionally, the last draft response (neither approved not confirmed - but still the unique there) states the opposite of what we are saying here. Given this, I'm not comfortable closing this issue in its current state.
<< Describe the changes >>
Adds a note to explain that empty headings are exposed in a screen reader / browser combination, and corrects a typo on a success criteria name.
Closes issue(s):
Need for Call for Review:
This will not require a Call for Review << choose reason(s): editorial changes (including to the applicability, expectation or examples section), changes to assumptions, background, accessibility support, change to website/test code (not rule), other (explain). >>
Pull Request Etiquette
When creating PR:
developbranch (left side).After creating PR:
Rule,DefinitionorChore.When merging a PR:
How to Review And Approve