"Image filename is accessible name for image" (9eb3f6): Process TF feedback –update applicability

[Jym77]

Update the applicability of "Image filename is accessible name for image" by:

• only consider img elements, not anything with a role of img (where src has no meaning) (still keeping image buttons);
• consider any image in the source set, not just the img attribute;
• explicitly remove empty names that are causing weird issues.

Note: The change in applicability will invalidate all implementations. We'll need to get implementation data anew before re-submitting to TF.

Note: test are failing until #1284 is merged.

Closes issue(s):

• closes "Filename is valid accessible name" (9eb3f6) should limit its applicability #465
• closes image filename, consider srcset / picture + source as well [9eb3f6] #1244

Need for Final Call:
This will require a 1 week Final Call (updating applicability).

---

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

• Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).

After creating PR:

• Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
• Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
• Close the issue that the PR resolves (and make sure the issue is referenced in the top of this comment)
• Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

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 Final Call period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

Example removed.

[kasperisager]

I like it! 👏

[WilcoFiers]

Looks good, just please fix the failing test.

[WilcoFiers]

Editorial

Tried to answer concerns.

[carlosapaduarte]

Just a minor editorial to correct. Approving it already.

Good suggestion!

[daniel-montalvo]

The Task Force had an interesting meeting last week. We talked about the use of notes and how we could take notes to a minimum.
https://www.w3.org/2020/05/07-wcag-act-minutes.html

There are Several notes here.

• First one: I think we could eliminate it, as this is a part of the spec that we are explaining. I am hesitant that we should be explaining these in the rules themselves.
• The other ones I see them as nice to have, but I also think we can get rid of them. In my vview, what they are explaining is going to become evident once people take a look at the examples.

[Jym77]

• First one: I think we could eliminate it, as this is a part of the spec that we are explaining. I am hesitant that we should be explaining these in the rules themselves.

Yes. I added it because in the specs, the link from "source set" (at the start of 4.8.4.3) to the algorithm to update it (4.8.4.3.7) is not obvious. It took me some time to make that link myself, and I felt that linking only to "source set", while correct, is not really helping.

• The other ones I see them as nice to have, but I also think we can get rid of them. In my vview, what they are explaining is going to become evident once people take a look at the examples.

Yes. I added them trying to prevent an upcoming "these are bad examples we shouldn't use them" issue.

I agree that they are not essential (basically, no note is essential, otherwise its content should not be in a note but in the normative text…) and will remove them.

[daniel-montalvo]

• First one: I think we could eliminate it, as this is a part of the spec that we are explaining. I am hesitant that we should be explaining these in the rules themselves.

Yes. I added it because in the specs, the link from "source set" (at the start of 4.8.4.3) to the algorithm to update it (4.8.4.3.7) is not obvious. It took me some time to make that link myself, and I felt that linking only to "source set", while correct, is not really helping.

• The other ones I see them as nice to have, but I also think we can get rid of them. In my vview, what they are explaining is going to become evident once people take a look at the examples.

Yes. I added them trying to prevent an upcoming "these are bad examples we shouldn't use them" issue.

I agree that they are not essential (basically, no note is essential, otherwise its content should not be in a note but in the normative text…) and will remove them.

Good! Will approve once done.

[Jym77]

@daniel-montalvo I've removed the notes.

[Jym77]

Final Call ends on May 20.

[Jym77]

Final Call has ended. Merging.