6cfa84: Modify pass example 4 to be more realistic, using a dialog#1819
6cfa84: Modify pass example 4 to be more realistic, using a dialog#1819WilcoFiers merged 19 commits intoact-rules:developfrom
Conversation
|
@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. |
|
I'll open a separate PR regarding the focusable vs tabbable since that feels like an independent discussion. |
|
See also #1820 |
WilcoFiers
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a failed modal example as well that doesn't have the focus trap script?
Co-authored-by: Wilco Fiers <WilcoFiers@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@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. |
|
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
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we could have discussions about the overall styling choices, but I think this is already an improvement as is.
|
@WilcoFiers @Jym77 Adjusted Pass 4 / Fail 7 to be more descriptive. Let me know if that helps. |
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:
developbranch (left side).After creating PR:
Rule,DefinitionorChore.When merging a PR:
How to Review And Approve