Resolve "Element marked as decorative is not exposed" feedback

[kengdoj]

Survey Results
Rule Id: 46ca7f
Note from Mary Jo: I know we had a very brief discussion on the survey results but it did not get minuted (mainly due to the lack of mapping to a WCAG requirement).

Kathy Eng

• Passed Ex 4 (https://act-rules.github.io/rules/46ca7f#passed-example-4) - why does it have semantic role of none?
• Failed Ex 2 (https://act-rules.github.io/rules/46ca7f#failed-example-2) - I found this to be confusing because the image path is broken. The W3C logo image should be visible. It's meaningful and has an accessible name from the aria-labelledby. It should not have been marked decorative.
• Can the applicability be changed so 1.1.1 can be the accessibility requirement? Change to: The rule applies to decorative non-text content (replacing "any element") which is marked as decorative. Or, possibly, applies when presentational role conflicts exist for decorative non-text content.
  This would address this comment in Background: When these conflicts arise on decorative non-text content, this is also a failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1: Non-text Content because decorative non-text content must be implemented in a way that allows assistive technologies to ignore it. When these conflicts arise on text content, or on content which is not decorative, this is not a failure of WCAG. Therefore this rule is not mapping to any specific WCAG Success Criterion, and is not an accessibility requirement for WCAG.
• This rule seems to conflict with WAI guidance for decorative images (https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/decorative/) that alt="" is adequate to indicate that it should be ignored by AT. Would be a failed example?

Trevor Bostic

• This doesn't map to any requirements. Should it be placed in a similar bucket to the aria-* attribute is defined in WAI-ARIA rule, where it is on the back burner for now?
• Could the applicability be made to exclude text content so that this rule does map to 1.1.1? Or would that cause it to overlap too much with other rules? I am having a little trouble completely understanding this rules standing in regards to our other rules; it feels like some of these test cases may be covered by other rules.
• Possibly because it is not mapping to requirements, I am also not sure it aligns well with other rules.

Wilco Fiers

• Rule doesn't map to WCAG. We probably shouldn't have opened a survey on this.

Mary Jo

• Seems this is more of a user agent test, not a WCAG conformance test.
• I have the same question as Trevor. There could potentially be an aspect of this that is meaningful as an atomic rule for 1.1.1 to check for images that don't have alt text to see if they are marked as decorative.
• Same reason as others. In its current form, this rule doesn't map to WCAG conformance requirements and is more of a user agent test to make sure they are correctly handling decorative content.