Re: Change to Editors Draft

Thanks Alistair. I raised an issue on GitHub and added a suggestion:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/327

Best,
   Shadi


On 31/01/2019 10:37, Alistair Garrison wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After re-reading the full document 
> (https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322.html) I note 
> one change.  The definition of Atomic Rule includes an idea which 
> conflicts with the “expectation” concept described later.
> 
> The Atomic Rule definition (copied below for ease) is:
> 
> */Atomic rules/* describe how to test a specific type of solution. It 
> contains a precise definition of what elements, nodes or other "parts" 
> of a test subject 
> <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322.html#test-subject> are 
> to be tested, and when the test subject is considered to fail the rule. 
> These rules are to be kept small and /atomic/. This means that atomic 
> rules test a single "failure condition", and do so without using the 
> findings 
> <https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322.html#finding> from 
> other rules.
> 
> The issue is – atomic rules test a single “failure condition”.  This 
> should be changed to – atomic rules test a “single expected outcome”…
> 
> Why? If we look at all examples rules we see they all describe positive 
> expected outcomes; definitely not “failure conditions” e.g.
> 
>  1. Video elements have a transcript
>  2. Video elements have an audio description
>  3. Video elements have a description track
>  4. This rule checks that the HTML page has a title
>  5. Etc…
> 
> Yes, a late stage find – but, something which other reviewers would pull up.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Alistair
> 
> Alistair Garrison
> 
> Director of Accessibility Research
> 
> Level Access
> 

-- 
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 Thursday, 31 January 2019 12:43:33 UTC