6cfa84: Modify pass example 4 to be more realistic, using a dialog

[tombrunet]

Per todays ACT Task Force call, modifying Pass 4 to use a dialog to better highlight why a focus sentinel might be used.

Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 1 week Call for Review (Testcase and description are essentially the same, but using more of a real world example as discussed on the call)

---

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.

[tombrunet]

@WilcoFiers Does this better match what you're expecting as more of a real world example? I don't recall if there were other changes requested.

[tombrunet]

I'll open a separate PR regarding the focusable vs tabbable since that feels like an independent discussion.

[tombrunet]

See also #1820

[WilcoFiers]

Can you add a failed modal example as well that doesn't have the focus trap script?

[tombrunet]

@WilcoFiers Added Fail 7 in Contrast to Pass 4. I couldn't think of a real world scenario for this other than the developer simply has a bug.

[Jym77]

Looks like this resolves #1811. Can you add the link to the initial description?

[tombrunet]

Looks like this resolves #1811. Can you add the link to the initial description?

It felt like there is a two-part concern in #1811. I think this addresses the real-world example portion of it. I'm not sure this really addresses the difficulty in testing. If that's okay, I'll note that this fixes it.

[tbostic32]

I think we could have discussions about the overall styling choices, but I think this is already an improvement as is.

[tombrunet]

@WilcoFiers @Jym77 Adjusted Pass 4 / Fail 7 to be more descriptive. Let me know if that helps.

Please look again