Hi, After re-reading the full document (https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322.html) I note one change. The definition of Atomic Rule includes an idea which conflicts with the “expectation” concept described later. The Atomic Rule definition (copied below for ease) is: Atomic rules describe how to test a specific type of solution. It contains a precise definition of what elements, nodes or other "parts" of a test subject<https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322.html#test-subject> are to be tested, and when the test subject is considered to fail the rule. These rules are to be kept small and atomic. This means that atomic rules test a single "failure condition", and do so without using the findings<https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322.html#finding> from other rules. The issue is – atomic rules test a single “failure condition”. This should be changed to – atomic rules test a “single expected outcome”… Why? If we look at all examples rules we see they all describe positive expected outcomes; definitely not “failure conditions” e.g. 1. Video elements have a transcript 2. Video elements have an audio description 3. Video elements have a description track 4. This rule checks that the HTML page has a title 5. Etc… Yes, a late stage find – but, something which other reviewers would pull up. All the best Alistair Alistair Garrison Director of Accessibility Research Level Access
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2019 09:37:38 UTC