Rule 2ee8b8 ("Visible label is part of accessible name"): introducing a new "label in name algorithm". #2075

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2023-06-22T00:53:18Z

<< Describe the changes >>

Closes issue(s):

closes Visible label is part of accessible name (2ee8b8): screen reader pronunciation help in name that is not in label #2051, closes Visible label is part of accessible name (2ee8b8): symbolic text should not be considered a visible label #1989, closes Visible label is part of accessible name (2ee8b8): should common abrevations be accepted? #1619, closes Visible label is part of accessible name (2ee8b8): extra spaces in name might be OK. #1615, closes Visible label is part of accessible name (2ee8b8): Expectation seems to have unintended consequences #1458
does not handle: "Visible label is part of accessible name" [2ee8b8]: does the "label" necessarily contains all the visible text content? #2040 Visible label is part of accessible name indicates that inputs are not applicable because the label is not contained in the input #1500 "label and name from content mismatch" needs to also fail split up labels [2ee8b8] #451

Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 2 weeks Call for Review

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

[ x] Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).
[x ] Make sure you do not remove the "How to Review and Approve" section in your pull request description

After creating PR:

[ x] Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
[ x] Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
[x ] 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.
[ x] 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.

…l in name algorithm". It's intended mostly to handle whitespace and punctuation.

WilcoFiers · 2023-07-20T13:52:12Z

@dan-tripp-siteimprove Since this is being worked on still by @kengdoj, can we set this to draft?

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2023-07-20T21:20:46Z

@dan-tripp-siteimprove Since this is being worked on still by @kengdoj, can we set this to draft?

Done

…307n5z

…t-rules.github.io into develop

Jym77

This looks good. I like the details and the many new examples that explicit the decisions we've taken.

_rules/visible-label-in-accessible-name-2ee8b8.md

pages/glossary/visible-inner-text.md

Jym77 · 2023-11-09T09:19:52Z

pages/glossary/visible-inner-text.md

+
+The <dfn id="for-text">visible inner text of a [text node][]</dfn> is:
+-   if the [text node][] is [visible][], its visible inner text is its [data][];
+-   if the [text node][] is not-[visible][], [rendered][], and contains only [whitespace][], its visible inner text is the string `" "` (a single ASCII whitespace);


The conditional here sounds a bit weird 🤔
Notably, a text node that is not visible, rendered, and contains more than whitespace (e.g. in <span style="visibility: hidden">Hello</span>) would not trigger it and therefore have an empty string as visible inner text (rather than a whitespace).

Interesting question. I don't know the answer. But I'll note that I copied this definition from sanshikan so if it needs fixing here, it probably needs fixing there too.

OK, doing some archaeology, this is due to the fact that whitespace are not visible per our definition…

<button aria-label="hello world"><span>hello</span><span id="space"> </span><span>world</span></button>

The span#space is not visible (and neither is its child text node). So the first bullet doesn't apply. Without the second bullet, the visible inner text of the button would be helloworld, not matching the accessible name of hello world due to spacing…
I guess we need to add an example to show that.

Done in b2df021

This raises another question: what should we do with this?
<a aria-label="Download specification" href="#"><span>Download</span><span style="visibility: hidden">x</span><span>specification</span></a>
According to the current definition, because of the clause "contains only [whitespace][]", the visible inner text of the <a> element is "Downloadspecification". Visually it looks like "Download specification". So I wonder if we could remove the clause "contains only [whitespace][]". What do you think?

Good point 🤔 But if the span was invisible due to absolute positioning out of viewport, it shrould be removed:

<a aria-label="Download specification" href="#"><span>Download</span><span style="position: absolute; left: -9999px">x</span><span>specification</span></a>

I guess the true condition is whether it creates a CSS box that lies somewhere between the ones of the rest of the text taking part in the computation (and isn't fully contained in them), or something like that 🙈
Or maybe we just make the special case for visibility: hidden and assume that these is already a corner case and that it won't create too many true problems (We've been using that definition in Alfa for two years and I don't remember seeing a problem caused by it, so it may be safe to assume that it is a good enough approximation).

This has given me a lot to think about. I'll try to bring it up in our next one-on-one meeting.

pages/glossary/visible-inner-text.md

pages/glossary/label-in-name-algorithm.md

…://github.com/Siteimprove/sanshikan/blob/main/terms/visible-inner-text.md) - changing glossary links' prefixes from "./" to "#". I don't know if the former was working or not. but the latter is the common practice, it seems.

Co-authored-by: Jean-Yves Moyen <[email protected]>

…placing it with a new idea: the algorithm 'return value' eg. 'returns "is contained"'. - rewording rule expectation. I think that 'For the target element' is better than 'For each target element' because for this rule, the computation of the expecation for each applicable target element is done in isolation from the other applicable targets on the page. It's simpler if the "for loop" over all applicable targets is done by the tool, not the rule.

…s algorithm is for.

Changes done

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2024-10-23T02:54:42Z

Ok I see - at least, partly. There are parts of this that are over my head but still I can see now that this identifies a real category of false positives which weren't discussed until now.

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2024-10-23T03:00:32Z

Even so - again it seems to me that these whitespace cases shouldn't block this PR, because this PR didn't create them and doesn't make them worse. So using the strategy of incremental improvement (rather than perfection in one fell swoop): @dd8 what do you think of a separate PR for handling these whitespace cases?

dd8 · 2024-10-25T11:06:10Z

It looks like w3c/accname#205 is a blocker here. The accname 1.2 spec, current browser implementations, the current visible label rule, and this PR all disagree on where to add whitespace.

It's difficult to be sure whether this PR makes false positives better or worse without a lot more examples.

Here are some test cases:

        <!-- Example 1 - Passes current rule and PR 2075
         accname-1.2: One
         Chrome 129 accname: One
         FF 131 accname: One
         Safari 17.6 accname: One
         visible text content (current rule): One
         visible text content (PR 2075): One
         -->
        <button>One</button>

        <!-- Example 2 - fails current rule and PR 2075 because accname computed per spec has a space that visible text content doesn't
         accname-1.2: One Two
         Chrome 129 accname: OneTwo
         FF 131 accname: OneTwo
         Safari 17.6 accname: One Two (Note: Safari 17 accname has a space, Chrome/FF doesn't add a space)
         visible text content (current rule): OneTwo
         visible text content (PR 2075): OneTwo

         see https://github.com/w3c/accname/issues/205
        -->
        <button><span>One</span><span>Two</span></button>

        <!-- Example 3 - Passes current rule and PR 2075
         accname-1.2: One Two
         Chrome 129 accname: One Two
         FF 131 accname: One Two
         Safari 17.6 accname: One Two
         visible text content (current rule): One Two
         visible text content (PR 2075): One Two
        -->
        <button><span>One</span> <span>Two</span></button>

        <!-- Example 4 - Passes current rule and PR 2075
         accname-1.2: One Two
         Chrome 129 accname: One\nTwo
         FF 131 accname: One Two
         Safari 17.6 accname: One Two
         visible text content (current rule): One Two
         visible text content (PR 2075): One Two
        -->
        <button><span>One</span><br><span>Two</span></button>

        <!-- Example 5 - Fails current rule and passes with PR 2075
         accname-1.2: One Two
         Chrome 129 accname: One Two
         FF 131 accname: One Two
         Safari 17.6 accname: One Two
         visible text content (current rule): OneTwo
         visible text content (PR 2075): One\nTwo\n
        -->
        <button><div>One</div><div>Two</div></button>

Jym77 · 2024-10-25T11:18:21Z

@dd8 From these five examples, it seems that:

this PR improves some without making anything worse, so it probably goes in the wrong direction anyway;
the weird case that this PR doesn't handle is also something that accname is fighting with, so we probably won't solve it on our own.

Based on that, I feel that we could indeed move on with this PR, it is a step in the good direction. Worst case is that when we come up with the perfect solution we'll throw away everything from here, but in the meantime we are still in a slightly better place.

I agree we should probably take up the discussion with the rest of the CG anyway.

dd8 · 2024-10-25T14:38:50Z

I think the whitespace handling in the different algorithms can be summarised like so:

accname-1.2 always adds a space between nodes
browser accname implementations usually add a space between nodes (space added for all display values except display:inline in Chrome/FF, space always added in Safari)
visible inner text used by this PR sometimes adds a space between nodes (space added for display:block display:table-caption display:table-cell display:table-row)
visible text content used by the previous version of this rule never adds a space between nodes

@dan-tripp-siteimprove Is my summary of visible inner text and visible text content correct?

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2024-10-25T18:38:51Z

@dan-tripp-siteimprove Is my summary of visible inner text and visible text content correct?

Yes, I think so.

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2025-01-23T23:12:38Z

@kengdoj On the call today I said that I had reduced the number of passed/failed examples in this PR. It turns out that was wishful thinking at best, because a minute ago I checked, and I see that this this PR currently has 16 Passed Examples and 18 Failed Examples. This rule as it is currently published has 6 and 5 respectively. I don't know what it should be, but that's what it currently is.

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2025-01-23T23:17:16Z

The current record holders are Content has alternative for visual reference with 15 passed examples and Text has enhanced contrast with 13 failed examples.

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2025-01-23T23:26:29Z

@shunguoy in the examples for this PR, there are buttons with inner text in passed example 4, passed example 7, failed example 10 and failed example 11 - are these the kind of examples you're interested in?

shunguoy · 2025-01-24T03:37:17Z

Thanks, Dan. Those are good examples, I was wondering if the visible text from a label element is included in this rule, for example, <label for=’abc’>Recording </label><button id=’abc’> </button> <label>Submit<input type=’submit’ /> </label> This can get a little more complicated if multiple items involved, for example, <label for=’abc’>Recording </label><button id=’abc’ aria-label=’recording the document’>Do it</button> Please just ignore if this case is included in another rule. Regards, Shunguo Yan, Ph.D. AI, Mobile, Web, Accessibility Technology & Innovation From: Dan Tripp ***@***.***> Date: Thursday, January 23, 2025 at 5:27 PM To: act-rules/act-rules.github.io ***@***.***> Cc: Shunguo Yan ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [act-rules/act-rules.github.io] Rule 2ee8b8 ("Visible label is part of accessible name"): introducing a new "label in name algorithm". (PR #2075) @ shunguoy in the examples for this PR, there are buttons with inner text in passed example 4, passed example 7, failed example 10 and failed example 11 - are these the kind of examples you're interested in? — Reply to this email directly, @shunguoy<https://github.com/shunguoy > in the examples for this PR, there are buttons with inner text in passed example 4<https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2075/files#diff-b609e901c9aca49d8a0ada57a17d4d3905a41f9c1b6030e8f03dc40db4d9dec8L90-L96 >, passed example 7<https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2075/files#diff-b609e901c9aca49d8a0ada57a17d4d3905a41f9c1b6030e8f03dc40db4d9dec8R130-R136 >, failed example 10<https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2075/files#diff-b609e901c9aca49d8a0ada57a17d4d3905a41f9c1b6030e8f03dc40db4d9dec8R300-R306 > and failed example 11<https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/2075/files#diff-b609e901c9aca49d8a0ada57a17d4d3905a41f9c1b6030e8f03dc40db4d9dec8R308-R314 > - are these the kind of examples you're interested in? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#2075 (comment) >, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AENOH2WDEB7XL2ZXDMN72ST2MF3DXAVCNFSM6AAAAAAZPPNL5KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMMJRGIYTQNBYGY >. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2025-01-24T18:56:09Z

Thank you for clarifying. I hadn't thought of <label> cases before, and I don't know of any <label> cases - as they relate to the 'label in name' SC - being covered by other ACT rules.

This rule is interested in two pieces of information: the visible label and the accessible name. Your cases seem to raise questions about the visible label i.e. whether this rule should consider <label> element contents to be part of the visible label. Your cases seem not to raise any questions about the accessible name. For the accessible name, we at ACT use the accessible name computation algorithm, which is defined by another group of people, and which seems to work fine. The complications we have seem to all be regarding the "visible label" part of this. Am I right?

The 'label in name' SC mentions <label> only briefly, and not in a way that helps us, as far as I can tell. If anything, it suggests that we need to be concerned with <label> cases, and much more: ""label" is not used in such a programmatic sense but is simply referring to a text string in close visual proximity to a component".

This is a worthwhile issue, but probably not something that this PR can fix. If you would like to collaborate with me on a future PR, let me know.

Jym77 · 2025-01-27T08:44:27Z

@shunguoy This is a good point indeed.

I think the rule tried to deflect the problem by restricting its Applicability to roles that accept name from content (thus, e.g., dodging <input> textboxes and most labelable elements), but then at least (native) buttons, radio buttons and checkboxes are labelable and accept name from content. So we need to decide whether in this case the "visible label" is only the inner text (what the rule considers now), or also the associated label element.

The rule actually requires all of (i) name from content; (ii) (non-empty) visible inner text; and (iii) aria-label(edby). I think that in these cases, the likelihood of also having a label element is fairly low (i.e. very few authors would use your <label for=’abc’>Recording </label><button id=’abc’ aria-label=’recording the document’>Do it</button> example (this currently fails the rule)). But I've learnt that "nobody in their right mind would do that" is usually wrong when talking about HTML 🙈

As @dan-tripp-siteimprove says, this is unrelated to the current PR, but definitely worth discussing, can you open an issue so we don't forget about it?

shunguoy · 2025-01-27T19:23:45Z

will do. Thanks.

#2236

sage-putnam

While I think the comment for improving upon this work (concerns around parenthesis meaning different things within different contexts) is valid and should be addressed, I agree that it may be best to take it up as an improvement.

Aside from this, I believe the number of examples to be appropriate given the complexity of the rule, and everything else seems correct to my understanding. Approving!

iadawn · 2025-02-14T12:48:51Z

__tests__/spelling-ignore.yml

@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@
 - ozplayer
 - GitHub

-# Test case anamolies
+# Test case anomolies


Suggested change

# Test case anomolies

# Test case anomalies

iadawn · 2025-02-14T12:53:29Z

_rules/visible-label-in-accessible-name-2ee8b8.md

+
+This rule assumes that the visible label doesn't use CSS to add whitespace where none exists in the DOM.
+
+This rule assumes that for any word which appears in both the accessible name and the visible label, the same spelling and hyphenation is used in both places.  For example: if "non-negative" is used in the accessible name and "nonnegative" is used in the visible label, that would violate this assumption.  Or if "color" is used in the accessible name and "colour" is used in the visible label, that would also violate this assumption.


Suggested change

This rule assumes that for any word which appears in both the accessible name and the visible label, the same spelling and hyphenation is used in both places. For example: if "non-negative" is used in the accessible name and "nonnegative" is used in the visible label, that would violate this assumption. Or if "color" is used in the accessible name and "colour" is used in the visible label, that would also violate this assumption.

This rule assumes that for any word which appears in both the accessible name and the visible label, the same spelling and hyphenation is used in both places. For example, if "non-negative" is used in the accessible name and "nonnegative" is used in the visible label, that would violate this assumption. Similarly, if "color" is used in the accessible name and "colour" is used in the visible label, that would also violate this assumption.

iadawn · 2025-02-14T13:03:59Z

pages/glossary/label-in-name-algorithm.md

+- For each character that either a) represents non-text content, or b) isn't a letter or a digit: replace that character with a space character.
+    - For a) Judgment of "non-text" probably can't be fully automated.  For example: "X" for "close" probably can be automated, but presumably there are more cases than this.
+    - For b) Use the Unicode classes Letter, Mark, and "Number, Decimal Digit [Nd]". (This will exclude hyphens, punctuation, emoji, and more.)
+- Remove all characters that are within parentheses (AKA round brackets).


Given that we know this is an issue, I think it should be included some how as a note that it may result in false negatives in these situations. Particularly since we are already recognising i18n differences in the whitespace splitting part of this algorithm.

iadawn · 2025-02-14T13:09:33Z

pages/glossary/label-in-name-algorithm.md

+    - It checks whether elements are consecutive or not.  That is: it checks for a substring, in the computer science sense of the term.  Not a subsequence.
+    - An empty list is a sublist of any list.
+
+If the answer is "yes" (that is: the tokenized 'label' is a sublist of the tokenized 'name'), then this algorithm returns "is contained".  Otherwise, it returns "is not contained".


Daft question time. What if the label is 'This is a cat' and the name is 'This is not a cat'. The tokenized name would include the tokenized label but is obviously entirely incorrect.

I would be happy to be missing something in the specific definitions of 'is contained' and 'sublist'.

@iadawn when you wrote "these situations", which situation do you mean? Is it (a) (Judgment of "non-text")? If so: I think that would result in a false positive (i.e. incorrect failing of the rule), not a false negative.

As for the 'This is a cat' case: I tried to cover that with the bullet point that starts with "It checks whether elements are consecutive or not."

'These situations' relates to the situation where removal of parenthesis results in a change in meaning for certain languages. You note that these will result in a false negative but it might be worth being clear about that possibility in the text somehow.

Regarding the cat and rereading it I think that the problem may start with the statement:

is the tokenized 'label' a sublist of the tokenized 'name'

That introduces the term 'sublist' - which has it's own particular meaning - and then defines that term in a different way to it's own particular meaning.

Perhaps another way to write this would be:

Suggested change

If the answer is "yes" (that is: the tokenized 'label' is a sublist of the tokenized 'name'), then this algorithm returns "is contained". Otherwise, it returns "is not contained".

Then check if the consecutive tokenized 'label' is contained within the tokenized 'name'.

Or some such.

'These situations' relates to the situation where removal of parenthesis results in a change in meaning for certain languages.

@iadawn I see now. Thank you for clarifying. I just pushed two commits for it. Does that cover it?

That introduces the term 'sublist' - which has it's own particular meaning - and then defines that term in a different way to it's own particular meaning.

You replaced "sublist" with "contained within". In all respect, I think that's a step backwards. "Contained within" is ambiguous, as was revealed by #1458 , which this PR (in it's current state i.e. using my definition of "sublist") fixes.

That introduces the term 'sublist' - which has it's own particular meaning - and then defines that term in a different way to it's own particular meaning.

I'm afraid I don't understand either part of that of that sentence. 1) Assuming that by "particular meaning" you mean "official definition": I couldn't find any official definition of "sublist", so I made my own. 2) Even if "sublist" had an official definition somewhere, I assume that official definition would define it to work the same as every programming language's "subList()" function, which means: consecutive elements, same order. Which is the same way that my definition works. So how my definition differs from that is beyond me.

netlify · 2025-02-18T10:57:49Z

✅ Deploy Preview for act-rules ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`f9850c8`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/act-rules/deploys/67bcc0c9a40c280008177f5b
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2075--act-rules.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

daniel-montalvo · 2025-02-18T10:59:24Z

Hey @dan-tripp-siteimprove

I've resolved conflicts with the 'develop' branch. Some of them were tricky. Would appreciate if you can take a look to see if I messed up with something here.

kengdoj · 2025-02-18T15:04:59Z

pages/glossary/label-in-name-algorithm.md

+
+Let 'label' be the [visible inner text][] of the target element.  Let 'name' be the [accessible name][] of the target element.  Both 'label' and 'name' are strings.
+
+Sub-algorithm to tokenize a string:


Since these steps are sequential, suggest they be numbered instead of bullet points.

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2025-02-19T00:46:40Z

Hey @dan-tripp-siteimprove

I've resolved conflicts with the 'develop' branch. Some of them were tricky. Would appreciate if you can take a look to see if I messed up with something here.

Nice, thank you. I hadn't thought to do that. I will take a look - but it might take me a few days.

dan-tripp-siteimprove · 2025-02-24T18:38:11Z

Would appreciate if you can take a look to see if I messed up with something here.

@daniel-montalvo I looked today and I found no problems. Thank you.

…per review comment act-rules#2075 (comment)

dan-tripp-siteimprove and others added 6 commits April 4, 2023 12:25

invalid-form-field-value-36b590: updating failed example 2.

aeafb90

Merge branch 'develop' into develop

5a07973

Merge branch 'act-rules:develop' into develop

a75c7f8

Rule visible-label-in-accessible-name-2ee8b8: introducing a new "labe…

623d26e

…l in name algorithm". It's intended mostly to handle whitespace and punctuation.

Merge branch 'act-rules:develop' into develop

f920a47

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/develop' into rule-2ee8b8-may-2023

ee3e993

dan-tripp-siteimprove added Rule Update Use this label for an existing rule that is being updated reviewers wanted labels Jun 22, 2023

dan-tripp-siteimprove requested review from kengdoj and giacomo-petri June 22, 2023 00:53

dan-tripp-siteimprove self-assigned this Jun 22, 2023

dan-tripp-siteimprove changed the title ~~Rule 2ee8b8 may 2023~~ Rule 2ee8b8 ("Visible label is part of accessible name"): introducing a new "label in name algorithm". Jun 22, 2023

dan-tripp-siteimprove marked this pull request as draft July 20, 2023 21:19

dan-tripp-siteimprove and others added 2 commits August 17, 2023 12:14

Merge branch 'act-rules:develop' into develop

75a9878

Adding examples to rule presentational-children-no-focusable-content-…

81caf8a

…307n5z

Jym77 mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2023

Update visible-label-in-accessible-name-2ee8b8.md #2101

Merged

7 tasks

dan-tripp-siteimprove added 2 commits October 27, 2023 12:49

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into develop

2928be6

Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/dan-tripp-siteimprove/ac…

5cd8b2c

…t-rules.github.io into develop

Jym77 previously requested changes Nov 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

dan-tripp-siteimprove and others added 8 commits November 9, 2023 11:42

removing Passed Example 15 because it's a duplicate.

092c849

editing example: WAVE -> WCAG

473bcb8

Update pages/glossary/visible-inner-text.md

5c7fc1e

Co-authored-by: Jean-Yves Moyen <[email protected]>

Update pages/glossary/visible-inner-text.md

3d3b657

Co-authored-by: Jean-Yves Moyen <[email protected]>

adding mention of innerText

8ed61b8

adding preamble to label-in-name-algorithm.md which mentions what thi…

46294dd

…s algorithm is for.

WilcoFiers added the Agenda item label Oct 24, 2024

shunguoy mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2025

Rule 2ee8b8 ("Visible label is part of accessible name"): adding label text as part of visible label for labelable elements #2236

Open

sage-putnam approved these changes Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

iadawn reviewed Feb 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

carlosapaduarte removed the Agenda item label Feb 17, 2025

daniel-montalvo force-pushed the rule-2ee8b8-may-2023 branch from 22ede5a to 4da5300 Compare February 18, 2025 12:51

daniel-montalvo added 3 commits February 18, 2025 14:17

Merge branch 'develop' into rule-2ee8b8-may-2023

5617755

Put back removed exceptions

6be702c

Add missing exxception

0d4c543

kengdoj reviewed Feb 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

minor rewording. based on review.

a959b09

dan-tripp-siteimprove added 2 commits February 24, 2025 13:53

Adding an assumption about round brackets and the human language. As …

f1219c8

…per review comment act-rules#2075 (comment)

Fixing typo.

f9850c8


		This rule assumes that the visible label doesn't use CSS to add whitespace where none exists in the DOM.

		This rule assumes that for any word which appears in both the accessible name and the visible label, the same spelling and hyphenation is used in both places. For example: if "non-negative" is used in the accessible name and "nonnegative" is used in the visible label, that would violate this assumption. Or if "color" is used in the accessible name and "colour" is used in the visible label, that would also violate this assumption.

	If the answer is "yes" (that is: the tokenized 'label' is a sublist of the tokenized 'name'), then this algorithm returns "is contained". Otherwise, it returns "is not contained".
	Then check if the consecutive tokenized 'label' is contained within the tokenized 'name'.


		Let 'label' be the [visible inner text][] of the target element. Let 'name' be the [accessible name][] of the target element. Both 'label' and 'name' are strings.

		Sub-algorithm to tokenize a string:

Rule 2ee8b8 ("Visible label is part of accessible name"): introducing a new "label in name algorithm". #2075

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Rule 2ee8b8 ("Visible label is part of accessible name"): introducing a new "label in name algorithm". #2075

Conversation

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Jun 22, 2023 • edited by Jym77 Loading

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

After creating PR:

When merging a PR:

How to Review And Approve

WilcoFiers commented Jul 20, 2023

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Jul 20, 2023

Jym77 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Oct 23, 2024

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Oct 23, 2024

dd8 commented Oct 25, 2024

Jym77 commented Oct 25, 2024

dd8 commented Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Oct 25, 2024

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Jan 23, 2025

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Jan 23, 2025

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Jan 23, 2025

shunguoy commented Jan 24, 2025 via email

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Jan 24, 2025

Jym77 commented Jan 27, 2025

shunguoy commented Jan 27, 2025 • edited Loading

sage-putnam left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

netlify bot commented Feb 18, 2025 • edited Loading

✅ Deploy Preview for act-rules ready!

daniel-montalvo commented Feb 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Feb 19, 2025

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Feb 24, 2025

dan-tripp-siteimprove commented Jun 22, 2023 •

edited by Jym77

Loading

dd8 commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

shunguoy commented Jan 27, 2025 •

edited

Loading

netlify bot commented Feb 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading