W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-act-r@w3.org > January 2021

RE: Joint ACT-TF / ACT-Rules CG meeting, January 21st

From: Jean-Yves Moyen <JYM@siteimprove.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 15:23:19 +0000
To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, ACT Rules CG <public-act-r@w3.org>, Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MW3PR20MB33383419911FDABF133C2ACFBAA90@MW3PR20MB3338.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Hello,

In preparation for next week meeting, I’ve tried to sum up the discussion so far:
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/1511#issuecomment-759516941


It covers more or less topics of the first two agenda items: presentation of the problem and examples of what we do (both toy examples and real rules or PR).
I hope the different examples will help make the question a bit less abstract 😃


Jean-Yves Moyen
Senior Software Engineer


[Siteimprove]<https://siteimprove.com/>

[email]
jym@siteimprove.com<mailto:jym@siteimprove.com>


[address]
Sankt Annæ Plads 28, DK-1250 København K

[Siteimprove on Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/Siteimprove>
[Siteimprove on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Siteimprove>
[Siteimprove on LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/siteimprove>



From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 January 2021 16:56
To: ACT Rules CG <public-act-r@w3.org>; Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Subject: Joint ACT-TF / ACT-Rules CG meeting, January 21st

Hey folks,

We want to invite you all to a joint meeting between the ACT Task Force, and the ACT-Rules community group, to talk about how to handle state testing for rules. This meeting will be on January 21st, 15:00 CEST.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=ACT-TF&iso=20210121T15&p1=16&ah=1<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeanddate.com%2Fworldclock%2Ffixedtime.html%3Fmsg%3DACT-TF%26iso%3D20210121T15%26p1%3D16%26ah%3D1&data=04%7C01%7Cjym%40siteimprove.com%7C23ee91bbdf4c49e799e208d8b25b974e%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637455453743219384%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=f1VFfdxAJH9EUYo67Yi2NGKCPP3E68QlMXY1ySDXYpw%3D&reserved=0>

IRC: http://irc.w3.org?channels=#wcag-act<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Firc.w3.org%2F%3Fchannels%3D%23wcag-act&data=04%7C01%7Cjym%40siteimprove.com%7C23ee91bbdf4c49e799e208d8b25b974e%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637455453743219384%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OcXgZfNVwFMWWkOjM61McMbUHaHVj5DQQQFsFNgrDvQ%3D&reserved=0>  (port: 6665 channel #wcag-act)
Zoom: https://mit.zoom.us/j/234301406<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmit.zoom.us%2Fj%2F234301406&data=04%7C01%7Cjym%40siteimprove.com%7C23ee91bbdf4c49e799e208d8b25b974e%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637455453743229340%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=P9NPUY2k63jelA5Q41H3rA6mMNofaSstQY9VWFpNwa8%3D&reserved=0> (ask the password in IRC)

Agenda:
- Introduction on state
- Examples of state in rules today
- Discussion on how use state in rules going forward


To briefly introduce the question; It is currently unclear whether sate updating should be considered part of page exploration or if it should be included in the test procedure itself. Some examples of it would be that while activating different tabs and testing the content of each tab one at a time is generally considered to be part of an exploratory step that is done before testing. But it is fairly common when testing the contrast of a link, to include testing the default, hover, and focus state in the test procedure.

Where this matters for ACT is in the scope of a rule. Should rules be written so they are applicable to different states, or do we limit rules to testing just the current state. In either scenario, do we want to account for state in the applicability and expectations, or do we need some other way to account for state in ACT rules?


I hope you'll all be able to attend.

Kind regards,

--
Wilco Fiers
Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]

Join me at axe-con<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com%2Faxe-con&data=04%7C01%7Cjym%40siteimprove.com%7C23ee91bbdf4c49e799e208d8b25b974e%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C1%7C0%7C637455453743229340%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=BZAkiGPV741o7zaS3ZpZXrhKQsRjGpM0MLaVcXIUyNs%3D&reserved=0> 2021: a free digital accessibility conference.

image001.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)

image002.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image002.jpg)

image003.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image003.jpg)

image004.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image004.jpg)

image005.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image005.jpg)

image006.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image006.jpg)

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2021 15:23:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 13 January 2021 15:23:38 UTC