Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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.bs for secondary requirements explanation #542

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 21, 2023
Merged

Update act-rules-format.bs for secondary requirements explanation #542

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
db868d1
Update act-rules-format.bs for secondary requirements explanation
kengdoj Sep 12, 2023
8de0128
Update act-rules-format/act-rules-format.bs
kengdoj Sep 12, 2023
dd196bf
Apply suggestions from code review
kengdoj Sep 14, 2023
ebc9e39
Update act-rules-format/act-rules-format.bs
kengdoj Sep 14, 2023
625bdb3
Update act-rules-format/act-rules-format.bs
kengdoj Nov 6, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
28 changes: 6 additions & 22 deletions act-rules-format/act-rules-format.bs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -224,8 +224,7 @@ Rules that can be used to determine if an accessibility requirement is *satisfie

A secondary accessibility requirement is a requirement that is correlated with the rule, but for which the rule is not designed to test. The outcome of the rule impacts the result of the accessibility requirement, but the rule is not intended to test the conformance of that requirement. This correlation often results in some of the rule's test cases not satisfying the secondary accessibility requirement.
kengdoj marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

When the rule is not designed to test the accessibility requirement, or failed outcomes of the rule still require further testing for the accessibility requirement, the rule <em class="rfc2119">may</em> map the accessibility requirement as Secondary. When an ACT rule maps to a Secondary requirement, it <em class="rfc2119">must</em> include an explanation of why that requirement is Secondary in the Background section of the rule.

When the rule is not designed to test the accessibility requirement, or failed outcomes of the rule still require further testing for the accessibility requirement, the rule <em class="rfc2119">may</em> map the accessibility requirement as Secondary. When an ACT rule maps to a Secondary requirement, it <em class="rfc2119">must</em> include an explanation of why that requirement is Secondary.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
When the rule is not designed to test the accessibility requirement, or failed outcomes of the rule still require further testing for the accessibility requirement, the rule <em class="rfc2119">may</em> map the accessibility requirement as Secondary. When an ACT rule maps to a Secondary requirement, it <em class="rfc2119">must</em> include an explanation of why that requirement is Secondary.
When the rule is not designed to test the accessibility requirement, or failed outcomes of the rule still require further testing for the accessibility requirement, the rule <em class="rfc2119">may</em> map the accessibility requirement as secondary. When an ACT rule maps to a Secondary requirement, it <em class="rfc2119">must</em> include an explanation of why that requirement is secondary.

kengdoj marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Some scenarios when a rule will have Secondary requirements include:

Expand All @@ -239,26 +238,12 @@ A rule was designed to test a minimum accessibility requirement and there exists
<ul>
<li>Conformance Requirement: Success Criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)</li>
<li>Secondary Requirement: Success Criterion 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced)</li>
<ul><li>Background Section: Success Criterion 1.4.6 is mapped as a Secondary requirement because the SC may be [=not satisfied=]when the rule’s outcomes are `passed`. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Explanation: This success criterion is **more strict** than this rule. This is because this criterion has a higher minimum contrast. Some of the passed examples do not satisfy this success criterion.</li></ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</aside>

**Scenario 2**: the rule's failed outcomes require further testing for the accessibility requirement

A rule was designed to test a specific type of solution for an accessibility requirement, but the rule does not cover all solutions that can be used to meet the requirement. In this scenario, the rule’s failed outcomes cannot determine that an accessibility requirement is not satisfied because further testing is needed. The rule’s passed outcomes can determine that an accessibility requirement is satisfied. The accessibility requirement is a Secondary requirement.</li>

<aside class=example>
<header>Example: a rule that tests if a focusable element has no keyboard trap via standard navigation</header>
kengdoj marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
<blockquote>This rule was designed to test for a specific solution that can be used to meet Success Criterion 2.1.2: No Keyboard Trap. The rule does not test for other possible solutions, such as the use of non-standard navigation, so its failed outcomes cannot determine that the accessibility requirement is [=not satisfied=]. This rule’s mapping:
<ul>
<li>Secondary Requirement: Success Criterion 2.1.2: No Keyboard Trap</li>
<ul><li>Background Section: This rule tests for one solution that can meet Success Criterion 2.1.2. SC 2.1.2 is mapped as a Secondary requirement because other solutions (such as use of non-standard navigation to exit a keyboard trap) can be used to meet this SC that are not tested by this rule.</li></ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</aside>

**Scenario 3**: the rule is stricter than a requirement
**Scenario 2**: the rule is stricter than a requirement
kengdoj marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

A rule was designed to test an accessibility requirement and there exists a less strict accessibility requirement. In this scenario, the rule’s passed outcomes can determine that the less strict requirement is satisfied, and the rule’s failed outcomes may not determine that the less strict requirement is not satisfied. It is possible that the accessibility requirement may be satisfied when the rule’s outcome is failed. The less strict accessibility requirement is a Secondary requirement.</li>
kengdoj marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Expand All @@ -268,11 +253,10 @@ A rule was designed to test an accessibility requirement and there exists a less
<ul>
<li>Conformance Requirement: Success Criterion 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced)</li>
<li>Secondary Requirement: Success Criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)</li>
<ul><li>Background Section: Success Criterion 1.4.3 is mapped as a Secondary requirement because the SC may be [=satisfied=]when the rule’s outcomes are `failed`.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Explanation: This success criterion is **less strict** than this rule. This is because this criterion has a lower minimum contrast. Some of the failed examples may satisfy this success criterion.</li></ul>
</aside>


**Scenario 4**: the rule may impact the result of the accessibility requirement, but the rule is not intended to test the conformance of that requirement
**Scenario 3**: the rule may impact the result of the accessibility requirement, but the rule is not intended to test the conformance of that requirement

A rule was designed to test an accessibility requirement and under certain conditions, other accessibility requirements apply. In this scenario, the other accessibility requirements are sometimes, but not always, satisfied or not satisfied because they are not always applicable in the rule. These other accessibility requirements are a Secondary requirement.
kengdoj marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Expand All @@ -282,7 +266,7 @@ A rule was designed to test an accessibility requirement and under certain condi
<ul>
<li>Conformance Requirement: Success Criteria 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (Level A), 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (Level A), 2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only) (Level AAA)</li>
<li>Secondary Requirement: Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content</li>
<ul><li>Background Section: Success Criterion 1.1.1 Non-text Content is mapped as a Secondary requirement because the SC applies only to certain types of links (<area> element links), not to all links. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Explanation: This success criterion is **related** to this rule. This is because HTML &lt;area&gt; elements are both links and non-text content. Most failed examples satisfy this success criterion. </li></ul>
</ul>
</blockquote>
</aside>
Expand Down