Update form-field-label-descriptive-cc0f0a.md

[colabottles]

Based on feedback from ACT Task Force, we are not sure about the update to the applicability and the expectation and we are looking for feedback.

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]

Issue: I don't think that works as an expectation, or at least that means the rule doesn't map to 2.4.6 anymore.
Firstly, 2.4.6 does not require label, only that if the exist they are descriptive (Understanding 2.4.6):

This Success Criterion does not require headings or labels. This Success Criterion requires that if headings or labels are provided, they be descriptive.

Secondly, 2.4.6 is about "WCAG labels" which are not restricted to programmatic ones, here also the Understanding document is explicit:

This Success Criterion also does not require that content acting as a heading or label be correctly marked up or identified - this aspect is covered separately by 1.3.1: Info and Relationships.

---

So, requiring a "WCAG label" is for 3.3.2, requiring that it is correctly marked up is for 1.3.1 (and a bit 4.1.2) and requirinig that it is descriptive is for 2.4.6.

We may be able to have a single rule with secondary requirements, but it seems that several rules for checking these different aspects would be better suited.

[colabottles]

@Jym77 I am good with removing the expectation if that would fix this. Or another solution that fits better with this is also something I am good with as well.

[Jym77]

Removing this expectation won't fix it. 2.4.6 is Inapplicable to form fields without label (programmatic or not).

[colabottles]

I see. As I'm unsure as to my status coming up, I'm good with what the group decides per the conversation.