-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
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
2.5.3 - control with label but no accname (understanding note + new failure technique) #2057
Conversation
- add the note about UI components with visible text and no name, which fail both 4.1.2 and 2.5.3 - edit link to 1.3.5 to remove the hardcoded reference to WCAG 2.1
Thanks @patrickhlauke looks good to me. |
Looks good to me too. |
+1 |
Any news on this @alastc ? |
avoids merge conflicts due to new failure techniques that appeared since the PR was made
Just resolved the merge conflict (caused by more recent failure techniques that were added in the time since this PR was first filed), so this is ready to merge again... |
I don't think that checks 2 or 3 are needed for this. |
@awkawk you made me look a the test procedure again, and on reflection I actually modified the procedure to be more specific. have a look |
On deck for 1/26 call. |
Preview link for F111.html |
Co-authored-by: Mike Gower <[email protected]>
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.
marking as approve with my minor editorial updates
Co-authored-by: Scott O'Hara <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Scott O'Hara <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Scott O'Hara <[email protected]>
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.
- Missing an update to the
Failure Techniques
section oflabel-in-name.html
to reference the new technique? - If we do retitle to note applicability to 1.3.1 and/or 4.1.2, consider also adding a ref to those understanding docs'
Failure Techniques
sections?
Co-authored-by: Dan Bjorge <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dan Bjorge <[email protected]>
Added the failure technique to the 2.5.3 understanding doc (forgot to do it earlier). While I was there, also corrected the understanding document, which was/is in a shockingly broken state (with actual live input/labels as part of the understanding, when they should be code samples, and a misnesting of sections/headings). |
@alastc question: should I also add the technique to 1.3.1 and 4.1.2? I held off it at the time, because I wasn't sure if doing so would cause issues if the 1.3.1/4.1.2 understanding docs are also still used for WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. if not, I'm happy to also add the technique to the respective understanding docs (and tidy them a tiny bit) in this PR |
f4e06c4
to
6967424
Compare
…into patrickhlauke-issue2045
6967424
to
c4a37d6
Compare
Patrick made updates based on the review.
@alastc so as you merged this, assume the answer to my question above is: no, don't add the failure technique to 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 |
Follow-up to #2057 (comment)
Follow-up to #2057 (comment)
Follow-up to #2057 (comment) Co-authored-by: Kenneth G. Franqueiro <[email protected]>
Also cleans-up 2.5.3 understanding document markup/structure
Closes #2045