Adds consistency to accessibility support and assumptions wording

[daniel-montalvo]

For assumptions:

"No assumptions".

For accessibility support:

"No accessibility support issues known".

Closes issue(s):

• closes inconsistent default text for Assumptions and Accessibility Support #932 (ADD ISSUE NUMBER HERE)

Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 1 week Call for Review << small changes affecting a small number of test cases, if in doubt do not use this. >>

---

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.

[Jym77]

Double dots need to be cleaned.
We probably want to unify italics or no italics for these texts.

[Jym77]

Also not sure why some (like here) are in straight up txt and some (like this one) are in italics/emphasised text.

[giacomo-petri]

Also not sure why some (like here) are in straight up txt and some (like this one) are in italics/emphasised text.

@Jym77, considering I've "recently" created a new rule and I've remembered the italics/emphasised behaviour, I think it's coming from the rule template here https://act-rules.github.io/pages/design/rule-template/

Might be worth to also update it.

[daniel-montalvo]

@giacomo-petri I'd say I included updates to those files as well. Feel free to raise it if I did not.

[WilcoFiers]

I'd like for them to be italic personally. I think that sets them apart from the ones where there is information. Slightly easier to scan the page that way.

Did some clean-up

[WilcoFiers]

For the next persons reviewing this. The example changes in this come from Prettier running automatically. These should not impact the implementations.