Resolve "Heading has non-empty accessible name"

[nitedog]

This rule checks that "Heading has non-empty accessible name": Survey results

The survey discussed during: 17 January 2021 meeting

Wilco Fiers:

• [ ] This rule asserts that empty headings, even if assistive technologies ignore them, are a failure of SC 1.3.1 and 2.4.6. I don't think that's accurate. If assistive technologies consistently ignore an element that should be ignored, there is no violation of WCAG.

Kathy Eng:

• [ ] I agree with 1.3.1, but I don't think 2.4.6, which requires a descriptive heading when a heading is provided, is applicable. The rule is just looking for non-empty. Remove 2.4.6.
• [ ] From Understanding 2.4.6: This Success Criterion does not require headings or labels. This Success Criterion requires that if headings or labels are provided, they be descriptive.

Mary Jo Mueller:

• [ ] To Wilco's point, perhaps the assumption is that some ATs do not ignore a heading with an empty name, and so this check ensures headings have a programmatic name. If ALL ATs ignore semantic headings without a name, then why have this rule?
• [ ] Agree with Kathy. 2.4.6 is about having descriptive headings, but as part of the rules to check it, the rule would have to discover the programmatic heading and associated label. However, if all AT's ignore headings without labels then you essentially wouldn't have a programmatic heading and 2.4.6 wouldn't fail.

Trevor Bostic:

• [ ] Passed example 3 would still have an accessible name without the aria-labelledby due to its text-content. Would it be more clear to have no text?

[WilcoFiers]

The important part here (see minutes), is that ACT TF members on the call all voted against pursuing this rule further. It will be up to the CG to decide if they want to try a different approach with this rule, or deprecate it.

Also, just to have that on record, I was the only person on that call who abstained from voting. I objected when this rule was proposed in CG, and so did not want to leave the impression that I was further pressing that objection after the CG decided to move forward with the rule.