3984 labels descriptions

[mbgower]

Closes #3984 by incorporating the idea of accuracy into 2.4.6 Headings and Labels, and reinforcing the relationship between 2.4.6 and 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions.

Also took the opportunity to use em dashes instead of dashes, where appropriate.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	46c1dd2
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/wcag2/deploys/6807af8a4dd88100084610d5
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4212--wcag2.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.

[TestPartners]

A semi-colon would be a more appropriate separator than a dash or hyphen.

[StackOverflowIsBetterThanAnyAI]

I see no improvement changing xxx - xxx to xxx-xxx.

[patrickhlauke]

I see no improvement changing xxx - xxx to xxx-xxx.

for context, the change here uses an actual – dash character rather than a - minus sign. and in traditional typography, there's no spaces around dashes (or rather, generally you'd want a hairline space)

[patrickhlauke]

x-ref #4096

[patrickhlauke]

Would suggest more gracefully embedding the cross-reference to 3.3.2, rather than in an parenthetical

[bruce-usab]

Discussed on backlog call 3/7. Kept in Drafted.

[mbgower]

A semi-colon would be a more appropriate separator than a dash or hyphen.

I don't find that a semi-colon would be an improvement in most cases, and in at least one case it would not make sense because the dash is not separating two independent clauses. Note that all this PR does in this context is to update the character to proper usage (from a dash to an em dash). That change is not the focus of the PR.

[mraccess77]

I'm still unclear from the wording updates if a visual label was descriptive but the accessible name was not descriptive then would SC 4.1.2, 1.3.3, 2.5.3 fail and not 2.4.6? Is 2.4.6 just about visible labels?

[mbgower]

I'm still unclear from the wording updates if a visual label was descriptive but the accessible name was not descriptive then would SC 4.1.2, 1.3.3, 2.5.3 fail and not 2.4.6? Is 2.4.6 just about visible labels?

An interesting question, but it seems somewhat orthogonal to the original issue and this PR?
I believe it might make sense to peel this off as a new issue and address it there (and make a PR to address, if necessary). Would that be acceptable to you @mraccess77 ?

[mraccess77]

An interesting question, but it seems somewhat orthogonal to the original issue and this PR? I believe it might make sense to peel this off as a new issue and address it there (and make a PR to address, if necessary). Would that be acceptable to you @mraccess77 ?

Yes, I am fine with that.

[mbgower]

Would suggest more gracefully embedding the cross-reference to 3.3.2, rather than in an parenthetical

@patrickhlauke this was accomplished in 2f6acb6

Merge is blocked by your request. Could you please review and indicate your request resolved, or offer updated feedback?

A change was made in response to Patrick's request for a change, and the updated language was part of the WG response period, and received good support.