RE: Review: Rule template

I would suggest a slightly different format:

Summary: Short title to uniquely identify the rule from other rules
Required: True or False (some rules maybe considered best practices or maybe required in the future)
Description: Longer description of what the rule is testing
Primary Success Criteria: SC that is deemed most related to the rule (e.g. think of rules related to headings or landmarks)
Secondary Success Criteria: SC that are related to the rule (e.g. think of rules related to headings or landmarks)
Target elements: What elements are applicable to the rule
Techniques: A list of techniques that can be used to satisfy the rule with pointers
Procedures: A list of manual check procedures  required or may be required based on the evaluation of content of a document

Rule result options:

1.      Violation

2.      Warning

3.      Manual Check

4.      Pass

5.      Not applicable (e.g. no target results found)

Jon


From: Wilco Fiers [mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:08 AM
To: Auto-WCAG List <public-auto-wcag@w3.org>
Subject: Review: Rule template

Hi all,
Github is having some issues at the moment, so I just wanted to pass this to you for review for tomorrow's call:
https://github.com/WilcoFiers/auto-wcag/commit/934edd172b416367584008ff4ee5af09d058bed1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_WilcoFiers_auto-2Dwcag_commit_934edd172b416367584008ff4ee5af09d058bed1&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=REZD8fc2AwufInstfW3L5jSLVS8bjZtAodDOhat7yAI&m=jwP9OEw0BZRH4mHdiEbLCnlawEMeRg4MgJslXZQ7100&s=1j076GCCDsZVJjw4sxTCBajBAdf2EifO11w3vILI5no&e=>

It's an updated version of the rule format. Let me know what you think!

--
Wilco Fiers - Senior Accessibility Engineer

[cid:image001.jpg@01D21985.E3BFAC60]