RE: 1.4.13 Content on Hover

Steve, Kevin, you are quite correct, of course, about the footnote. I
suppose what I am criticising here is the language used in G167. That
appears very clear in itself. Saying "When a button ... has a clear text
label, ... the button also acts as a label for the input field." That makes
it seem absolutely definite - the button acts as a label, so you don't need
a separate label for the field! The next words reinforce that idea by
saying "This label helps users understand the purpose of the field without
introducing repetitive text...". Again, quite clear - you don't need to add
extra text to label the field! (And a programmatic name is still text when
all is said and done, whether as hidden text or as an ARIA label.)

Only below that does it show a display box with the - to some, rather
strange - comment about a programmatically determined name, and doesn't say
why that is needed. Experts in accessibility understand that, and they also
know that is for AT and for blind people particularly. But experts probably
aren't looking at the Techniques, they already know how to do things!
However, developers that are doing accessibility for the first time may be
somewhat vague about what such names are, and what they are for. It's
newbie workers that are most likely to be looking at the Techniques in
order to find out how to do things, and I think the language of this
technique, in the main Description paragraph, is particularly unhelpful and
misleading.And not showing the code markup for this example doesn't help
either! If it just showed that, all would become clear.