Update visible-label-in-accessible-name-2ee8b8.md

kengdoj commented 10 months ago

Update examples to include https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1458#issuecomment-1555077770 Closes issue(s):

closes #XXX (ADD ISSUE NUMBER HERE)

Need for Call for Review:

This will require a 2 weeks Call for Review << new rule, or substantial changes affecting a large number of test cases, if in doubt, use this. >>

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.

kengdoj commented 7 months ago

Thank you @dd8 for catching that.

I've opened https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2144 to update the matching characters definition.

Jym77 commented 7 months ago

Call for Review ends on December 21st.

Jym77 commented 7 months ago

Removing from Call for Review as two reviewers were from the same organisation…

tombrunet commented 6 months ago

Added a comment regarding Pass 5. It feels to me like this scenario should be considered inapplicable, but that would require a modification to the applicability. The rule is consistent as-is, but it seems more accurate to say that the non-text content scenario is not applicable to this rule rather than to say that it passes it...

act-rules / act-rules.github.io