Modify checklist in PR template

[osma]

Reasons for creating this PR

After using the PR template for a while, I've found that the checklist is a bit problematic, especially the question about added unit tests. This PR rephrases the question so that it can be ticked also in cases where tests are not relevant (e.g. only changes to front-end code for which we don't have unit tests anyway)

Link to relevant issue(s), if any

n/a

Description of the changes in this PR

• rephrase the 2nd checklist question about unit tests
• add a new checklist question that the PR doesn't harm accessibility (suggested by @kouralex )

Known problems or uncertainties in this PR

n/a

Checklist

• phpUnit tests pass locally with my changes
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if not, explain why below)
• The PR doesn't introduce unintended code changes (e.g. empty lines or useless reindentation)

[kinow]

👏 🙇

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1322 (042500e) into master (a14435f) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #1322   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     70.68%   70.68%           
  Complexity     1646     1646           
=========================================
  Files            32       32           
  Lines          3786     3786           
=========================================
  Hits           2676     2676           
  Misses         1110     1110           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a14435f...042500e. Read the comment docs.

[kouralex]

Very nice and needed changes/additions @osma !

Minor comments:
One could add examples to the newly added accessibility part. E.g., tabbing works (element flow is logical, focused element is visually distinguishable), .sr-only is used when approriate (together with appropriate usage of headings), color contrast is high enough... EDIT: also that it scales well (different zoom/resolution levels)

Other than that, looks good to me! 👍

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[osma]

One could add examples to the newly added accessibility part. E.g., tabbing works (element flow is logical, focused element is visually distinguishable), .sr-only is used when approriate (together with appropriate usage of headings), color contrast is high enough... EDIT: also that it scales well (different zoom/resolution levels)

I made small fixes in a new commit based on your suggestions, but I think it's impossible to give a thorough lesson on accessibility in the context of a single checkbox so these are by necessity just reminder keywords, intended for a developer who knows about accessible design.