What is the connection between accessible name and descriptive visual label?

[mbgower]

In the comments for #4212 @mraccess77 said"

I'm still unclear from the wording updates if a visual label was descriptive but the accessible name was not descriptive then would SC 4.1.2, 1.3.3, 2.5.3 fail and not 2.4.6? Is 2.4.6 just about visible labels?

This issue will attempt to address/resolve that question.

[detlevhfischer]

The PR #4212 includes the text

It is possible for controls and inputs to have an appropriate accessible name (e.g. using aria-label="…") and therefore pass Success Criterion 4.1.2, but to still fail this Success Criterion (if the label is inaccurate or insufficiently clear or descriptive).

To me that clearly indicates that non-visual labels are as much subject to testing in 2.4.6 as visible ones. Since the issue is the same as with visible labels, I think it makes sense to cover descriptiveness here in 2.4.6 instead of wedging it into 4.1.2. If there is a descriptive visible label with a deviating programmatic label via aria-label, that would certainly fail 2.5.3 and arguably also 2.4.6 since for non-visual users, there would be no descriptive label (I guess even linking via for would be overridden by aria-label). I see no connection to 1.3.3, though.

[mbgower]

@detlevhfischer, the PR does not add that paragraph. It is pre-existing (covered by lines 45-50). All the PR does is some very slight grammatical fixes, and incorporate the notion of "accuracy"

That's why I opened this question as a separate issue; it is not related to the PR changes.