Update F2.html

[mbgower]

• rephrased the introduction to include mention of assistive technology
• removed example 3
• updated outcome logic of checks 1 and 2
• added a third condition to check 2

Resolves #4109

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c6bb6d0
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/wcag2/deploys/6737775fb31ac6000830aff0
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4128--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[bruce-usab]

Discussed on backlog call 11-1. Concern on call with only having heading examples, since CSS can semantically be used to convey emphasis.

[mbgower]

Created a new issue to track unincorporated changes #4132

[mbgower]

Once the other non-structural changes have been added in the other Issue, the wording of the first check can be adjusted to something like the a prior commit

[detlevhfischer]

Test: The sentence

If condition 2 is true, the failure condition does not apply

seems superfluous and therefore a bit odd (it seems implied in the first part).

But I have more general concerns about this Failure Technique. People will use it to fail content that use things like b and i instead of strong and em so they will let content fail for stuff that is usually not semantically available to screen reader users (unless you explicitly check for styling / emphasis). And there are cases where the author might rightfully claim that b or i were used for stylistic reasons that do not map onto the HTML semantics. Should there be a not limiting of the Failure to cases like headings where the practical issue is clear (or a warning that often inline semantic markup is not honored by AT)?