Skip to content

Conversation

@daniel-montalvo
Copy link
Collaborator

@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo commented Sep 8, 2025

<< 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:

  • Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).
  • Make sure you do not remove the "How to Review and Approve" section in your pull request description

After creating PR:

  • Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
  • Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
  • Link the PR to any issue it solves. This will be done automatically by referencing the issue at the top of this comment in the indicated place.
  • Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

When merging a PR:

  • Close any issue that the PR resolves. This will happen automatically upon merging if the PR was correctly linked to the issue, e.g. by referencing the issue at the top of this comment.

How to Review And Approve

  • Go to the “Files changed” tab
  • Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
  • Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
  • Make sure to also review the proposed Call for Review period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 8, 2025

Deploy Preview for act-rules ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 85dd9cb
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/act-rules/deploys/6904ad4bb8eff100087d6b9c
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-2351--act-rules.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo self-assigned this Sep 8, 2025
Copy link
Member

@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers left a 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?

@daniel-montalvo
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@WilcoFiers

I Opened #2361. Can we proceed with this now?

@Jym77 Jym77 added Review Call 1 week Call for review for small changes and removed reviewers wanted labels Jan 8, 2026
@Jym77
Copy link
Collaborator

Jym77 commented Jan 8, 2026

Call for Review ends on January 15th.

Comment on lines 218 to 236
Copy link
Collaborator

@giacomo-petri giacomo-petri Jan 8, 2026

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.

Copy link
Member

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.

Copy link
Collaborator

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.

@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers removed the Review Call 1 week Call for review for small changes label Jan 12, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[b49b2e] Heading is descriptive - Inapplicable examples

6 participants