Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Accessibility conformance Testing (ACT) Rules Format 1.1 (Issue #977)

Thank you for sending us this review. We see a few different ways that your work could be applied, and be tested. As this document is on the REC track, certain criteria need to be met in order for it to advance. The main one of this is having ["at least two independent implementations"](https://www.w3.org/2023/11/ag-charter#success-criteria) of the thing being specified.

There are a number of possible avenues here—we're wondering which you are intending for this document. Some possibilities:

* The status quo: this document is specifying a format for writing ACT rules—in which case, the ACT rules documents themselves would count as implementations. We encourage you to ensure that the specification is precise enough to allow tools to be written that could verify, or 'lint', ACT rules against this spec—these linting tools would then form a test suite that ACT Rules authors could use to verify the rules documents they're writing.

* We also encourage you to publish a REC track document that aggregates the ACT rules as written by the CG—in which case the requirement for _them_ to mature on the REC track would be that accessibility testing tools embodying (or supporting) the rules would be required.

* If you have a goal that manual testing tools should be able to load ACT rules, for humans to use in test procedures (which we encourage) then implementations would be accessibility testing tools that support the loading of ACT rules.

* Some of the ACT rules could be checked entirely mechanically. It's possible that ways could be developed to achieve this that could be used (by a machine) directly, as part of projects such as [Playwright](https://playwright.dev/), [Cypress](https://www.cypress.io/), and/or [Web Platform Tests](https://web-platform-tests.org/) (which has a somewhat different focus). This would allow the rules (or rather the mechanical checks underpinning them) to be more widely adopted, so we encourage you to investigate this approach in future.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/977#issuecomment-2498473019
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/977/2498473019@github.com>