- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 07:58:03 +0100
- To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>, WCAG ACT TF <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Hi, On 15/12/2017 15:19, Alistair Garrison wrote: > I’m interested in altering the Test case format (explicit results) > model. We have the following on the table at present: > > { > > "name": "axe-core", > > "version": "2.1.7", > > "license": "MPL-2.0", > > "a11y-testcases": [{ > > "url": > "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dequelabs/axe-core/master/test/integration/rules/image-alt/image-alt.html", > > "test": ["wcag20:text-equiv-all", "WCAG-TECHS:G90.html", > "mytool:image-alt"], > > "failed": ["#violation1", "#violation2", "#violation3", > > "#violation4"], > > "passed": ["#pass1", "#pass2", "#pass3", "#pass4", "#pass5", > > "#pass6"] > > }, { > > ... > > }] > > } > > I’d be more interested in each piece of “failing or passing” content > having it’s own meta – rather than using arrays of bunched data. The > reason being that adding an example should not break loads of other > stuff, our cause a maintenance headache. Indeed, during the development of EARL we had looked at aggregation and encountered many problems. The statement above says that a web page has 4 violations and 6 passes to three tests, but the mappings are unclear. The statement is difficult to process any further beyond this point. > We’re also looking to automate the transpile of our unit test content > into this format, and that is aided by having individual test cases > defined separately. > > I would propose the following: > > { > > "organisation": "", > > "license": "", > > "a11y-testcases": [ > > { > > "url" or "htmlFragment": > "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dequelabs/axe-core/master/test/integration/rules/image-alt/image-alt.html#monkeys", > > "wcagRefs": ["wcag20:text-equiv-all", "WCAG-TECHS:G90.html"], > > "conforms":false | true] > > }, > > { > > etc… per piece of content... This maps pretty nearly to EARL: - organisation -> earl:Assertor - url/htmlFragment -> earl:TestSubject - wcagRefs -> earl:TestCriterion - conforms -> TestResult > The option to provide a url *or HTML fragment* would be very useful in > terms of consuming other peoples data… An earl:TestSubject could be any of: - simple URI - "content" (simple text, Base64, or XML) - HTTP response (headers, and/or body) - "Document" (description of document) - "Software" (description of software) > The “conforms” status is simply set to a true or false. An earl:TestResult consists of: - outcome (pass, fail, cannot tell, not tested, not applicable) - "info" (optional - simple text, for additional information) - "pointer" (optional - to identify location within TestSubject) > I have also dropped the testId as it’s not necessary, and could make the > test cases subject to change. > > Thoughts / comments welcome. But, it would be good to get this > nailed-down as soon as possible, so we can move ahead with publishing > the test cases… I'm wondering if we should attempt an updated Working Group Note of EARL, only this time using JSON rather than RDF/XML serialization for the examples? It looks to me like everything is pretty much there. - https://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/ Best, Shadi > Alistair > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Monday, 18 December 2017 06:58:20 UTC