2.5.3 - control with label but no accname (understanding note + new failure technique)

[patrickhlauke]

Also cleans-up 2.5.3 understanding document markup/structure

• adds new F111 Control with visible label text but no accname (improperly numbered F109 initially)
• add failure technique in Understanding document
• added notes in Understanding about UI components with visible text and no name failing both 4.1.2 and 2.5.3
• removed direct reference to WCAG 2.1
• resolved discussion with ACT on where to report some of the failure examples

Closes #2045

[mraccess77]

Thanks @patrickhlauke looks good to me.

[detlevhfischer]

Looks good to me too.

[jake-abma]

+1

[patrickhlauke]

Any news on this @alastc ?

[patrickhlauke]

Just resolved the merge conflict (caused by more recent failure techniques that were added in the time since this PR was first filed), so this is ready to merge again...

[awkawk]

I don't think that checks 2 or 3 are needed for this.

[patrickhlauke]

@awkawk you made me look a the test procedure again, and on reflection I actually modified the procedure to be more specific. have a look

[bruce-usab]

On deck for 1/26 call.

[bruce-usab]

Preview link for F111.html

[scottaohara]

marking as approve with my minor editorial updates

[dbjorge]

1. Missing an update to the Failure Techniques section of label-in-name.html to reference the new technique?
2. If we do retitle to note applicability to 1.3.1 and/or 4.1.2, consider also adding a ref to those understanding docs' Failure Techniques sections?

[patrickhlauke]

Added the failure technique to the 2.5.3 understanding doc (forgot to do it earlier). While I was there, also corrected the understanding document, which was/is in a shockingly broken state (with actual live input/labels as part of the understanding, when they should be code samples, and a misnesting of sections/headings).

[patrickhlauke]

@alastc question: should I also add the technique to 1.3.1 and 4.1.2? I held off it at the time, because I wasn't sure if doing so would cause issues if the 1.3.1/4.1.2 understanding docs are also still used for WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. if not, I'm happy to also add the technique to the respective understanding docs (and tidy them a tiny bit) in this PR

Patrick made updates based on the review.

[patrickhlauke]

@alastc so as you merged this, assume the answer to my question above is: no, don't add the failure technique to 1.3.1 and 4.1.2