Comments on Auto WCAG Task Force Work Statement

Link:
https://www.w3.org/community/auto-wcag/wiki/%28Proposed%29_Accessibility_Conformance_Testing_%28ACT%29_Task_Force_Work_Statement


My main comment is that rules in addition to being tied to WCAG 2.0 have to be tied to specific technologies.
WCAG 2.0 recommendations only specify the goal not the techniques for achieving a goal.
So rules will need to be tied to specific W3C recommendations or other standards (e.g. HTML, CSS, SVG, ARIA, PDF/UA) since WCAG 2.0 itself is technology agnostic.

For example, the OpenAjax evaluation library has two rulesets, one that requires the use of ARIA techniques and one that does not, since WCAG 2.0 does not require people to use ARIA and people using the OpenAjax based tools requested a ruleset that does not require the use of ARIA (e.g. HTML4 Legacy Ruleset).   In the HTML4 ruleset ARIA related rules are only evaluated when ARIA techniques are used on a resource.  For example the HTML4 Legacy ruleset does not require a MAIN landmark, where the ARIA and HTML5 ruleset does.  If someone is using the HTML4 ruleset and adds a MAIN landmark, then other rules related to MAIN landmark would apply, since the author chose to include the MAIN landmark and we want to enforce the design patterns specified in the ARIA Authoring Practices Guide for the MAIN landmark.

See OpenAjax rulesets:
https://fae.disability.illinois.edu/rulesets/


I also feel strongly the rules need to represent the authoring practices for ARIA and HTML5 and not primarily defining rules for WCAG 2.0 failure techniques.

Jon