Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update act-rules-format.md for mapping secondary accessibility requirements #531
Update act-rules-format.md for mapping secondary accessibility requirements #531
Changes from 34 commits
d06205a
ae658ba
5c8814d
ca118f3
faca230
c6a0bcd
3a42ca5
8aab815
4dc257e
4149fc8
94e3ddb
1edfa96
d78ced1
50e6f96
ad065fa
428c777
62ad17a
3d83ed9
7850c84
c6604c6
3321f8f
f1d4051
c2cb8bd
b59f9c5
ca1fde0
0463d8a
a54100d
6b3314e
d1c0d9e
9518e6d
052858c
1852468
46152cc
f268da2
a3fdbc7
e701f60
6da8df5
83cfcfb
2e1418c
be78cdb
6173784
e6af050
639b64b
47b5c37
9aeb2e7
40d3449
fb80828
0f6dea9
b6ec42b
17350fe
ed0f372
6fb98a9
0124152
c9b2608
6b9c187
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this a "should" or a "may"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should these be links to the corresponding sections?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes, links will be added.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the outcome mapping for secondary requirements like?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need this definition, and why is it mixed with the definition of "Conformance Requirements"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is from the current version of the spec. We can't take it out. The reason it needs to be here is that secondary requirements cannot be satisfying tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried to commit @Jym77 's suggested change but GitHub resolved his comment without making the change. This is the first part of suggested change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With the current definition, 2.4.9 is still a Conformance Requirement for any 2.4.4 rule.
I think we need to add something like:
With "stricter version" being:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel it is a bit hard to read because of "outcome" both being the outcome of a rule, and the items in the conformance requirement section 🤔
Plus maybe making the conditions' name into anchor and linking back to them from here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm afraid that doesn't match the definition:
Now, when the rule passes, both 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 may be not satisfied on the page. For 1.4.3 because it also applies to images of text and the rule doesn't; for 1.4.6 because of images of text and the higher threshold. So this condition is true for both (and so is the "Failed Outcomes" condition).
I definitely think the idea is good but I don't think the definition is good yet 😕
I think the difference we need to make is between "all outcomes are
passed
=> the requirement may be satisfied or not satisfied for the test subject (=classical further testing is needed)" versus "an outcome ispassed
=> the requirement may be satisfied or not satisfied for this test target".The first one describes the relation of the rule for both 1.4.3 and 1.4.6, but the second only describes it for 1.4.6.
I could not find a way to describe the relation we want for 1.4.3 without breaking elsewhere (e.g. "an outcome is
passed
=> the requirement is satisfied for this test target" wouldn't describe the mapping of "image has accessible name" to 1.1.1.Anyway, I feel that with the current condition on Passed outcome, 1.4.6 is still a conformance mapping for such a rule, which is not what we want.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Jym77 - there have been updates since you left this and the other comments. Do the latest changes address your concerns?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@kengdoj Yes, I think it works.
I'm not a huge fan of having the difference put solely on the intention of the rule author (the rule is/is not designed to test the requirement), but I guess it does work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's not the only difference. A requirement can only be a conformance requirement if when the rule fails, the requirement is not satisfied.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But for this case (out of the 4 scenarios), when the rule fails, 1.4.6 is not satisfied.
So the difference between 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 on this rule is solely on the intention of the rule author.
This states that 1.4.6 must be listed as a requirement (either conformance or secondary).
(emphasise mine)
This state that 1.4.6 is not necessarily a "conformance requirement" because the rule "is designed" to test 1.4.3.
So, in this case, the only difference is the author intention. (for the other 3 scenarios, it is also the mapping, I agree).
There is the suggestion I made and the note that has been added that we could use strictness to make sure that in this case 1.4.6 can only be a secondary requirement. I would prefer to have it normatively since it would avoid the discussions whether 1.4.6 should be "conformance" or "secondary" in this case. But it does work as it is now, and maybe it is good enough to leave it like that rather than add complexity…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I found the second sentence here a bit confusing. I think this edit says the same thing but simplifies the langauge a bit? (the word evaluated might need to be changed)
As a second question, does "not always applicable in the rule" == "there exists a passed or failed test case for which the requirement is not applicable" (wording could be better). In my opinion, I think this should be the case, if it isn't then it means we are missing a test case. I think making "not always applicable in the rule" more concrete by referencing test cases makes it more measurable (e.g., applicable to some but not all passed and failed examples == secondary requirement under scenario 4) and makes it more understandable.