Should colour contrast rules (afw4f7, 09o5cg) test content of tables?

[Jym77]

https://act-rules.github.io/rules/afw4f7 and https://act-rules.github.io/rules/09o5cg

The role of row inherits from widget; and the rules do not apply for text in widgets (due to difficulties in handling states).

So, currently, the rules do not check colour contrast of text in tr elements, so effectively do not check content of a table element 🙈

I'm not sure the provision on widget states makes that much sense for row… So I'm not sure whether we should add row as an exception to the exception ("except if … the ancestor is an inheriting semantic widget but not an inheriting semantic row" is a bit of a mouthful). Or just keep the rules as is and consider that it will be solved once we get to write colour contrast for widgets rules…

[WilcoFiers]

Talking this over with Carlos, we think it might be good to just drop the "no widgets" condition and replace it with a "no disabled widgets" thing. We'll discuss on an upcoming meeting.

[carlosapaduarte]

Discussed in the CG: the group agrees to drop the "no widgets" condition. Add an assumption about the state the rule is checked in (no changes to the page or element's state). Consider adding examples to check this also.