Re: CFC - Publication of ACT Rules Format 1.0 as Candidate Recommendation

Thanks Detlev! I'm moving this to the ACT TF mailing list for the group 
to consider. It seems these are all editorial? If so, we may address the 
easy ones before publications and leave others until after publications.

Thanks,
   Shadi


On 28/03/2019 12:40, Detlev Fischer wrote:
> +1
> 
> The act-rules-format doc is clear and I support publication.
> 
> I add these notes purely for consideration by the ACT TF.
> 
> What I find missing is a description of how the ACT rules approach would 
> fit into existing expert evaluation workflows, but that is probably not 
> their main intented use.
> E.g., how would the documentation work in a way that it would support 
> the comparison of two independent tests to check if one replicates the 
> other?
> 
> On a practical level, it seems that vetted/completed atomic rules are 
> the most likely contenders for includion in established expert testing 
> procedures out there.
> 
> A prominent link to a set of ACT rules that have already been developed 
> / agreed on so far would be beneficial to assess the benefit of this 
> work for existing evaluation practices. This would also illustrate the 
> approach better than the short example snippets currently in the 
> act-rules-format doc.
> 
> Some phrases were hard to parse for me, e.g. this one:
> "If the failed outcome cannot be mapped to an accessibility requirement, 
> there MUST NOT be an accessibility requirement in the accessibility 
> requirements mapping."
> 
> One thing made me wonder:
> 
> 'Rules can be used to do complex aggregation by describing the logic in 
> the expectations. e.g. "The test target (the page) has a text 
> alternative for 80% of all img elements".'
> 
> Does this imply that composite rules may encapsulate conformance 
> tolerances where atomic fails may be acceptable and lead to overall 
> passes of an SC? This aspect does not seem to be discussed in this 
> document - perhaps this is a discussion to be had on a higher level.
> 
> To me it was unclear how ACT Rules deal with priorities / impact on PwD: 
> e.g. is an img element with missing alt a critical control or something 
> unimportant?
> 
> The rule "video elements have an audio description" indicates the grey 
> area that often exists - I guess the rule says nothing about criteria 
> for deciding whether a particular video actually has content that needs 
> an audio description, or whether that content (if it exists) can be 
> considered neglegible. Or would that have to be made explicit under 
> Assumptions?
> 

-- 
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, 28 March 2019 13:27:15 UTC