Update Links with identical accessible names and context serve equivalent purpose rule

giacomo-petri commented 1 year ago

Our current failed scenarios are ambiguous to users in general, which conflicts with 1st assumption. With these changes I've:

Moved "not ambiguous to users in general" from Assumptions to Applicability and updated Expectations adding a new one.
Updated failed scenarios, providing a clear visual context for sighted users, that doesn't reflect in an equal semantic context for AT users, resulting in links with same acc name and context, but not ambiguous to users in general.
Added 2 png files to make the examples more "realistic" (they have been created from scratch, so we have full rights).
Updated the definition of "programmatically determined link context, adding note about punctuation (which in my opinion is relevant).
Created 2 inapplicable example for:
- scenario where one of the links in set is not in the acc tree.
- scenario which is ambiguous to users in general.

Closes issue(s): #1999

Need for Call for Review: This will require a 2 weeks Call for Review I'm note sure about the timing here as multiple failed cases have been updated. I've set 2 weeks but feel free to update if needed.

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.

giacomo-petri commented 1 year ago

Just reviewed Carlos' feedback here https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1999#issuecomment-1385162708.

I'll update it asap.

giacomo-petri commented 1 year ago

@carlosapaduarte, updated per your request in https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1999#issuecomment-1385162708.

Ready for review

giacomo-petri commented 1 year ago

TODO: create very simple static demo pages for failed examples that reflect the link acc name (Contact Us).

Note: we still need to update the context definition to handle scenarios where the meaning of the sentence make the purpose of the link clear without ambiguity (with a different PR?).

e.g. <div><a href="#">contact us</a> via chat, or <a href="#">contact us</a> via email.</div>

Punctuation might be covered by the note I've added in "ambiguous to users in general" definition, but link might be enough meaningful and distinguishable within its context also without punctuation.

carlosapaduarte commented 1 year ago

@WilcoFiers There are multiple instances of the test checking the existence of the resources failing in this rule. Giacomo added test cases with query parameters in the URL (following Jean-Yves suggestion), and now the test complains the resource does not exist. The resource is there, but without the query parameter, of course. Can you update the test to not look at query parameters in the URL of the resource?

Jym77 commented 1 year ago

@giacomo-petri It seems the tests are failing because you're not in the contributors list. I suggest you do so in a separate PR (since it affects all of yours…), see, e.g. #2048 (plus a typo on "disambiguated" 🤔 )

giacomo-petri commented 12 months ago

This PR is in call for review for 2 weeks. Review ends Sept 29th.

giacomo-petri commented 10 months ago

I will promptly go through all the feedback. Regarding your specific point:

I don't mind having one or two examples of images in here. I don't think the examples should be exclusively about images. The far more common scenario is with just link text. I think the examples we had before did a better job of demonstrating that problem than the new examples do.

It's worth noting that the earlier examples posed a challenge for users in general, which is an exception for the 2.4.4 criterion evaluation.

Honestly, I never seen an example of a couple of links with identical accessible names and context serving different purposes without being ambiguous to users in general, except for the ones where something visual (background, icon, image) is making clear the difference.

giacomo-petri commented 10 months ago

@WilcoFiers,

updated "content of the page" with ACT "web page" definition;
removed 1.1.1 and 1.3.1 from secondary requirements as they are incidental;
added 2 failing examples for textual elements without including images.

Only query parameters topic is left out (pending agenda), then we should be ready to go for the call for review :D

giacomo-petri commented 7 months ago

Call for Review ends on February 23rd.

CLAassistant commented 7 months ago

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you all sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
1 out of 2 committers have signed the CLA.

:white_check_mark: giacomo-petri
:x: Carlos Duarte

Carlos Duarte seems not to be a GitHub user. You need a GitHub account to be able to sign the CLA. If you have already a GitHub account, please add the email address used for this commit to your account.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

giacomo-petri commented 5 months ago

@Jym77

this seems to be ready to merge.

Jym77 commented 5 months ago

Call for review has ended, merging.

act-rules / act-rules.github.io