Sorry I do not agree with reverting the removal of the More Articles heading

also the list of links do have an order eg date so they should be an ordered list
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H48.html

1. Sorry I do not agree with reverting the removal of the More Articles heading

This header is needed for people with cognitive difficulties. Help is also available to visually impaired people using a screen magnifiers. For such individuals the content should be clear and simple. One of the techniques is to use meaningful headings and subheadings.

2. About list

An ordered list is used only when a sequential order need to be maintained. When describing a process of doing a task. For instance, a step by step procedure followed to prepare tea.
When you apply the standard formatting of an ordered list, the links will be numbered: 1, 2, 3 ... What makes sense? Nothing!
The fact that articles are sorted, e.g. in chronological order does not matter. For a user this sorting criterion is not visible. Depending on the settings, they can be sorted according to different criteria.

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 96977f2

Thank you for the additional information. @zwiastunsw

1. This is the role of the template and not Joomla
2. You are wrong. It is an ordered list and not some random collection of links. You have no way of knowing if it is a set of instructions to follow or a series of articles that should be read if you remove the ordered list.

1. Role of template? Yes, I'm improving the template (view).
2. Thinking of your course, you should use an ordered list in the menu. Because it's not a random mix of links.

@zero-24 Plese restart travis build for php 5.4 and 7.1.

done

By adding the text More Articles to all sites you are breaking them. On my site I have one category that is for Lessons and another for videos. So saying more articles is wrong. O cannot do a language override either because it is the same view so I would have to create multiple overides of the view just to get back to the way my site was designed before this pr broke it.

Why should I have to change my site to use a menu for each lesson. That's crazy! It is an ordered list. It should stay an ordered list and not be changed into an unordered list. Even though I have used core features of Joomla to make that ordering this pr decides that it's not ordered.

This is not improving accessibility pr cognitive understanding.

1. This is neither a great nor a particularly important matter.
   That is why I will not insist on my opinion.
   However, we definitely have a different section on the site than the previous one, so this header makes it easy to orient, improve the organization of the page. Maybe another header text?
2. OK. So why do we have an unordered list in the module mod_articles_latest? Why do we have an unordered list in the module mod_articles_popular? Where is the consistency here?

Why is it a different section? To me it's just a different display the content is still of the same type

1. This changes output on all sites using the default layouts, we have a standing policy of being careful about this. The pros must outweigh the cons.

2. Just because things are inconsistent or done one way somewhere else doesn't necessarily make them right. At the end of the day it's all going to boil down to context I guess.

@brianteeman: It's hard for you to refuse. This is not a completely different section. But before you have the intro to the articles, and here only the links
@mbabker
2. In my opinion, the unordered list in these modules is applied correctly.

I have thought about this some more and I now agree that it should be an unordered list. This is because I still believe this is not a new section but a continuation of the articles displayed with intro paragraphs and therefore these are not number 1,2,3,4 but 9,10,11,12 etc so my argument for them to be ordered while still valid makes no sense

I have tested this item ✅ successfully on 96977f2

RTC after two successful tests.

This needs careful consideration before merging
#17524 (comment)

I don't think this should merge with the heading addition. As I said before, for better or worse we keep disruptive output changes to a minimum and this is a disruptive output change (and honestly one that is highly opinionated).

OK. I withdraw. I have no strength to discuss. Now I understand why good programmers don't report PR. Because instead of support, improvements, they encounter resistance from "scholars in writing".
There is no doubt that this PR improves the experience of blind users. It is easier to say that it is evil and to reject it than to improve it. And it would only be suggested to add CSS class to the header: element-invisible.

Even if the CSS class were added to the new heading, for templates that don't implement it it still results in a new heading being displayed on sites after update that they may or may not want (or on the other hand may or may not care about). Yes, it is an improvement for certain scenarios, I don't think anyone has flat out said that it is not, but there is a lot more to take into consideration than "this makes something better, push it to everybody".

Unfortunately we can't just accept every feature or pull request because somebody put the effort into it.

Closed for the reasons stated above