- From: Michael Fairchild <michael.fairchild@deque.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:45:20 -0500
- To: public-aria-at@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAMOUeN_EFmmGOqzkSf-GWX1c6_NmHJBBAueHKjPboQCX_v=naA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello everyone, I recently had the chance to update my https://a11ysupport.io/ project to better reflect what we have been discussing in ARIA-AT, and I'd like some feedback. I see this as an opportunity for us to make sure we are on the same page. I created some assertions for aria-details, created a test, and included test results. Note that this project isn't in sync with what we have discussed in many ways; the grading system needs work and it's missing things like pre-conditions and information like context while testing. Again, this a11ysupport.io project is just me experimenting with ideas, and it does not necessarily reflect our end goals or direction. I'd like some feedback on the assertions for aria-details in the project <https://a11ysupport.io/tech/aria/aria-details_attribute>. There are 'must', 'should', and 'may' assertions. 1. Is the wording of the assertions easily understandable? 2. Are 'must', 'should', and 'may' used appropriately? 3. Does this accurately reflect the concept of 'assertions' that we have previously discussed? 4. Do you find the addition of the 'rationale' for each assertion helpful? Additionally, I have updated the architecture document <https://github.com/accessibilitysupported/a11ysupport.io/blob/master/documentation/architecture.md> to reflect the recent changes that I made, including adding this style of assertions to the feature object and letting a test reference multiple assertions from multiple features. I only reference the update to this document because we have previously discussed the document. *Michael Fairchild, *CPWA <https://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertification> *•* *Accessibility Consultant* Deque Systems <https://deque.com>
Received on Monday, 20 May 2019 15:45:53 UTC