"Element with presentational children has no focusable content" (rule 307n5z) - adding examples

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented 1 year ago

Adding examples to rule presentational-children-no-focusable-content-307n5z. Mostly uncontroversial, I think, except for Inapplicable Example 4 ("At the time of writing..."), which I expect will ruffle some feathers.

Closes issue(s): none

Need for Call for Review: This will not require a Call for Review : editorial changes (including to the applicability, expectation or examples section)

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.

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented 11 months ago

Some of these discussions might be moved to the background section instead (e.g. the discussion about presentational/hidden/decorative.

I can do that. How about I move Inapplicable Examples 3 and 4 to the Background section?

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented 11 months ago

I would suggest @dan-tripp-siteimprove opens an issue to discuss these points, and rewrite the example description is a less verbose manner. @carlosapaduarte That's fair. I haven't opened a new issue yet - I'll discuss it in-person first. I did rewrite the example description and pushed another commit (d161d08ba6eba31686eee65f35f54bc425725e79). Let me know what you think.

tombrunet commented 10 months ago

@dan-tripp-siteimprove I think what's here is fine. Is it worth mentioning for Inapplicable 4 that that issue is covered by another rule (https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/6cfa84/)?

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented 10 months ago

@dan-tripp-siteimprove I think what's here is fine. Is it worth mentioning for Inapplicable 4 that that issue is covered by another rule (https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/6cfa84/)?

I think yes, and I just did it in commit d7ea3d32c889b8a2deb9f1273337c19599ceebae. Thank you.

act-rules / act-rules.github.io