Jean-Yves Moyen

[Matching complex selector](https://github.com/Siteimprove/alfa/blob/main/packages/alfa-selector/src/selector.ts#L2349-L2384) is bruteforce, creating needless work. For example, when matching `a b c`, we check for every `b` ancestor if an `a` ancestor exists, but if the closest...

Seems to have 4 effects on us: * `inert` elements are not included in the accessibility tree. Given that this may be overwritten by `inert="false"` on a descendant, this means...

See [the HTML AAM PR](https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/pull/410) to handle it.

I think that makes sense.

@kasperisager actually, about the repeated blocks bits… The intention of these rules was to jump to main content, Wilco insisted during review that this was both not really unambiguous and...

Another thought… At some point during the writing of the rules, there was a "page has no repeated content" rule which was ultimately dropped since "collapsible blocks" already passes on...

Yes, and that exactly why such a rule was dropped in ACT rules too. The point is that it might be more intuitive for users reacting "But, there is no...

Yes, the atomic rules are currently presented in random order (SIA number). I've already had discussion with May about changing that (since in other composite rules it can also change...

Hello, thanks for the input (and sorry in advance for the loooong answer…) --- > This has come up multiple times with customers, but enforcing that the first focusable element...

> Another thought… > At some point during the writing of the rules, there was a "page has no repeated content" rule which was ultimately dropped since "collapsible blocks" already...