W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2020

Task testing structure

From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:28:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGQw2h=qT1fY=8UOOFJSPAZWyXDWb8WqWn2myzXHH1_nMzB3ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
From an email I sent to some ACT folks a little while ago, where I had
tried expressing my thoughts on how we could use the same kind of structure
that ACT has, but as a way of essentially expressing overall scope as a set
of user journeys for task based testing. Hoping this can help for
tomorrow's conversation to have an example written out:

For ACT rules, Link has accessible name
<https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae> applies
<https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae#applicability> to any HTML
element with the semantic role
<https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae#semantic-role> of link that
is included
in the accessibility tree
<https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae#included-in-the-accessibility-tree>
. Link in context is <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb>descriptive
<https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb> essentially applies to any
element that passes Link has accessible name
<https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae>. In other words:

   1. For each thing exposed in the accessibility tree as a link
      1. Go through Link has accessible name
      <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae> steps
      2. For each link that fails, note result
      3. For each link that passes
         1. Go through Link in context is
         <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb>descriptive
         <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb> steps
         2. For each link that fails, note result

For tasks, even if simply in Education & Outreach type documentation, we
could walk people through the process of defining tasks and the steps
within each task similar to how the ACT Rules Format
<https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/> describes composite rules and the
atomic rules within each composite.

The scope of a pizza restaurant's site could then have the definition of a
collection of tasks, the level at which they could/would measure overall
conformance:

   1. Choose what kind of pizza to order from the available options
   2. Find out the hours of operation
   3. Find out how to get to the restaurant to dine in
   4. Contact the restaurant to order delivery

Each task could consist of atomic actions, typically defined by design,
development, and testing activities. For task 2. Find out the hours of
operation, that could look like:

   1. Load the pizza restaurant's site
      1. Possible inputs: found via search engine, hit a bookmark link,
      selected from browser's history, etc.
      2. Main page loads with focus at the top of the screen
   2. Navigate to contact page (composite, describes one possible path)
      1. Move focus to site navigation menu
      2. Open navigation menu
      3. Move focus to "Contact us" link
      4. Activate link
   3. Navigate to text containing the hours of operation (composite)
      1. Find "Hours of operation" section
      2. Read contents of "Hours of operation" section

Within the steps of each atomic task bit, we could then run through the
applicability checks for each ACT-type Rule. So Link has accessible name
<https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae> would apply to all links within
the path, but not to a random link in the footer that has a label that
doesn't imply any relation to hours or contact information.

I have thoughts about how each of these could work and how we would define
applicability of rules and such based on the tasks, but I think it would
make sense to just start with this higher-level question of whether we
could (or should) have some kind of structured task definition similar to
ACT's current structured rule definition.

-Shawn
Received on Monday, 27 April 2020 15:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 27 April 2020 15:28:33 UTC