From 513d49f95a87e9473d7c7d57512b5eac4865649d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Trevor Bostic Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 09:57:46 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/8] Updating CG writing guidance with example removed from ACT format doc. --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index 1a3353779c..9d8e793c6e 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -105,10 +105,23 @@ While optional, this can provide information on authors, previous authors, and o Applicability describes which (elements of) web pages should be tested using the rule. These elements are known as test targets. Applicability must be written in plain language, as well-formed grammatically correct sentences, so that it can be used by QA testers. Applicability must rely on well defined properties of the technologies that are tested. For instance, a rule may be applicable to all `video` elements, but it can not be applicable to all `object` elements used to show video, unless the term "video" is further defined. -Use objective, unambiguous definitions within applicability. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. The intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement. +The applicability of a rule must be unambigious and should be written using objective statements and in plain language.Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a defintion) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement. > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_. +### Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation Example + +The below section contains 2 approaches for writing an ACT rule for testing text contrast. For each example, both the applicability and expectation are included for clarity. Each of these examples follows the ACT rules format, but note that in the first example, the applicability is ended with the phrase "... except if the test target is part of a text node that is purely decorative or does not express anything in human language", while in the second example this phrase is appended to the expectation. Both of these approaches follow the normative ACT rules format and lead to valid ACT rules; however, we recommend including this text in the applicability when possible. When phrases such as this are included in the applicability, some test cases become inapplicable that would otherwise be passed if the phrase was included in the expectation. For example, for a smiling face emoji would be considered inapplicable when using the approach in Example 1, while in Example 2 the smiling face emoji would pass since it is considered an exception to the expectation. + +**Example 1 of Text Contrast** + - Applicability: This rule applies to any visible character in a text node that is a child in the flat tree of an HTML element, except if the test target is part of a text node that is purely decorative or does not express anything in human language. + - Expectation: For each test target, the highest possible contrast between the foreground colors and background colors is at least 3.0:1 for large scale text and 4.5:1 for other texts. + +**Example 2 of Text Contrast** + - Applicability: This rule applies to any visible character in a text node that is a child in the flat tree of an HTML element + - Expectation: For each test target, the highest possible contrast between the foreground colors and background colors is at least 3.0:1 for large scale text and 4.5:1 for other texts, except if the test target is part of a text node that is purely decorative or does not express anything in human language. + + For more details, see [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability). ## Expectations From 796f2190a93f31c3405f392aa22c8281b711f7ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Trevor R. Bostic" <32486143+tbostic32@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:43:43 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/8] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Jean-Yves Moyen --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index 9d8e793c6e..4232ab9516 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ While optional, this can provide information on authors, previous authors, and o Applicability describes which (elements of) web pages should be tested using the rule. These elements are known as test targets. Applicability must be written in plain language, as well-formed grammatically correct sentences, so that it can be used by QA testers. Applicability must rely on well defined properties of the technologies that are tested. For instance, a rule may be applicable to all `video` elements, but it can not be applicable to all `object` elements used to show video, unless the term "video" is further defined. -The applicability of a rule must be unambigious and should be written using objective statements and in plain language.Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a defintion) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement. +The applicability of a rule must be unambigious and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a defintion) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement. > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_. From b1ebf1bf94ba20a07fb81d20d0a3cb82901a4c28 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Trevor Bostic Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 12:21:39 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 3/8] Changing writing of subjectivity in applicabilty guide. --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 19 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index 4232ab9516..3ac6fc56f0 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -109,18 +109,21 @@ The applicability of a rule must be unambigious and should be written using obje > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_. -### Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation Example +### Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation Examples -The below section contains 2 approaches for writing an ACT rule for testing text contrast. For each example, both the applicability and expectation are included for clarity. Each of these examples follows the ACT rules format, but note that in the first example, the applicability is ended with the phrase "... except if the test target is part of a text node that is purely decorative or does not express anything in human language", while in the second example this phrase is appended to the expectation. Both of these approaches follow the normative ACT rules format and lead to valid ACT rules; however, we recommend including this text in the applicability when possible. When phrases such as this are included in the applicability, some test cases become inapplicable that would otherwise be passed if the phrase was included in the expectation. For example, for a smiling face emoji would be considered inapplicable when using the approach in Example 1, while in Example 2 the smiling face emoji would pass since it is considered an exception to the expectation. +With the development of ACT Rules format 1.1, subjectivity is now allowed in both the Applicability and the Expectation. However, depending on the rule, it can be difficult to know if a subjective phrase belongs in the Subjectivity or the Expectation. While we will continue to rely on the best judgment of the rule authors, most S.C. contain language suggesting where the subjectivity be placed. Lastly, at the bottom of this section we provide some concrete examples of each of the cases below to help illustrate our point. -**Example 1 of Text Contrast** - - Applicability: This rule applies to any visible character in a text node that is a child in the flat tree of an HTML element, except if the test target is part of a text node that is purely decorative or does not express anything in human language. - - Expectation: For each test target, the highest possible contrast between the foreground colors and background colors is at least 3.0:1 for large scale text and 4.5:1 for other texts. +When determining the placement of subjectivity in an ACT rule, the main question to answer is whether the S.C. would apply to some given content or if the content would satisfy the criteria via a normatively stated exception. For example, + - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, non-text content or text that is not expressing something in human language (like an emoji) is not evaluated by the S.C. and so should not be applicable in an ACT rule for 1.4.3 + - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, logos are a normative exception to the S.C., so they should be included as a passed exception to the Expectation for an ACT rule testing 1.4.3. + - For S.C. 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced), a link inside of a paragraph of text and a pin on a map would fit the normative exceptions of "Inline" and "Essential" respectively, and so should be included as a passed exception in the Expectation. + - For S.C. 3.3.1: Error Identification, a page should not be applicable for an ACT rule until a form field error indicator exists, thus the presence of a form field error indicator should included in the rule's applicability. -**Example 2 of Text Contrast** - - Applicability: This rule applies to any visible character in a text node that is a child in the flat tree of an HTML element - - Expectation: For each test target, the highest possible contrast between the foreground colors and background colors is at least 3.0:1 for large scale text and 4.5:1 for other texts, except if the test target is part of a text node that is purely decorative or does not express anything in human language. +When making these determinations, it maybe helpful to consider the following circumstances: + - If there was a page with only the content in question, would you expect it to be passed or inapplicable for an ACT rule. Passing would inidicate the subjectivity belongs in the Expectation while inapplicable suggests it belongs in the Applicability. + - Does the formulation of applicability and expectation lead to test cases that pass that should be inapplicable? If so, subjectivity likely needs to be added to the Applicability (possibility moved from the Expectation to the Applicability) +As a final reminder, the end goal of allowing subjectivity in the applicability is allow the writing of rules that were previously impossible and to prevent rules from creating passed test cases that are inapplicable to the S.C. the rule is intended to test. For more details, see [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability). From 451d89186c00f701c2f129f458a0ce81db45297c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Trevor Bostic Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:09:14 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/8] Fixing spelling issues. --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index 3ac6fc56f0..f4b641b12e 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ While optional, this can provide information on authors, previous authors, and o Applicability describes which (elements of) web pages should be tested using the rule. These elements are known as test targets. Applicability must be written in plain language, as well-formed grammatically correct sentences, so that it can be used by QA testers. Applicability must rely on well defined properties of the technologies that are tested. For instance, a rule may be applicable to all `video` elements, but it can not be applicable to all `object` elements used to show video, unless the term "video" is further defined. -The applicability of a rule must be unambigious and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a defintion) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement. +The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement. > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_. @@ -113,14 +113,14 @@ The applicability of a rule must be unambigious and should be written using obje With the development of ACT Rules format 1.1, subjectivity is now allowed in both the Applicability and the Expectation. However, depending on the rule, it can be difficult to know if a subjective phrase belongs in the Subjectivity or the Expectation. While we will continue to rely on the best judgment of the rule authors, most S.C. contain language suggesting where the subjectivity be placed. Lastly, at the bottom of this section we provide some concrete examples of each of the cases below to help illustrate our point. -When determining the placement of subjectivity in an ACT rule, the main question to answer is whether the S.C. would apply to some given content or if the content would satisfy the criteria via a normatively stated exception. For example, +When determining the placement of subjectivity in an ACT rule, the main question to answer is whether the S.C. would apply at all to the given content or if the content would satisfy the criteria via a normative exception. For example, - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, non-text content or text that is not expressing something in human language (like an emoji) is not evaluated by the S.C. and so should not be applicable in an ACT rule for 1.4.3 - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, logos are a normative exception to the S.C., so they should be included as a passed exception to the Expectation for an ACT rule testing 1.4.3. - For S.C. 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced), a link inside of a paragraph of text and a pin on a map would fit the normative exceptions of "Inline" and "Essential" respectively, and so should be included as a passed exception in the Expectation. - For S.C. 3.3.1: Error Identification, a page should not be applicable for an ACT rule until a form field error indicator exists, thus the presence of a form field error indicator should included in the rule's applicability. When making these determinations, it maybe helpful to consider the following circumstances: - - If there was a page with only the content in question, would you expect it to be passed or inapplicable for an ACT rule. Passing would inidicate the subjectivity belongs in the Expectation while inapplicable suggests it belongs in the Applicability. + - If there was a page with only the content in question, would you expect it to be passed or inapplicable for an ACT rule. Passing would indicate the subjectivity belongs in the Expectation while inapplicable suggests it belongs in the Applicability. - Does the formulation of applicability and expectation lead to test cases that pass that should be inapplicable? If so, subjectivity likely needs to be added to the Applicability (possibility moved from the Expectation to the Applicability) As a final reminder, the end goal of allowing subjectivity in the applicability is allow the writing of rules that were previously impossible and to prevent rules from creating passed test cases that are inapplicable to the S.C. the rule is intended to test. From c606ac78fb3e3b338bec52cc38c1711989450043 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Trevor Bostic Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:52:21 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 5/8] Updating bad sentence. --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index f4b641b12e..cb82e2c747 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ While optional, this can provide information on authors, previous authors, and o Applicability describes which (elements of) web pages should be tested using the rule. These elements are known as test targets. Applicability must be written in plain language, as well-formed grammatically correct sentences, so that it can be used by QA testers. Applicability must rely on well defined properties of the technologies that are tested. For instance, a rule may be applicable to all `video` elements, but it can not be applicable to all `object` elements used to show video, unless the term "video" is further defined. -The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement. +The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past, exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can now be directly placed in the applicability. This is the recommended approach when the test subject is inapplicable, instead of artifically making the test subject pass the rule by having the subjectivity in the expectation (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_. From 2e0b30a586d502cdcb2abc97ca8642dd87dd97e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Trevor R. Bostic" <32486143+tbostic32@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:53:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 6/8] Apply suggestions from code review Adding suggestions from Carlos. Co-authored-by: Carlos Duarte --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index cb82e2c747..eedd7b211e 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using obje ### Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation Examples -With the development of ACT Rules format 1.1, subjectivity is now allowed in both the Applicability and the Expectation. However, depending on the rule, it can be difficult to know if a subjective phrase belongs in the Subjectivity or the Expectation. While we will continue to rely on the best judgment of the rule authors, most S.C. contain language suggesting where the subjectivity be placed. Lastly, at the bottom of this section we provide some concrete examples of each of the cases below to help illustrate our point. +With the development of ACT Rules format 1.1, subjectivity is now allowed in both the Applicability and the Expectation. However, depending on the rule, it can be difficult to know if a subjective phrase belongs in the Applicability or the Expectation. While we will continue to rely on the best judgment of the rule authors, most S.C. contain language suggesting where the subjectivity be placed. Lastly, at the bottom of this section, we provide some concrete examples of each of the cases below to help illustrate our point. When determining the placement of subjectivity in an ACT rule, the main question to answer is whether the S.C. would apply at all to the given content or if the content would satisfy the criteria via a normative exception. For example, - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, non-text content or text that is not expressing something in human language (like an emoji) is not evaluated by the S.C. and so should not be applicable in an ACT rule for 1.4.3 - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, logos are a normative exception to the S.C., so they should be included as a passed exception to the Expectation for an ACT rule testing 1.4.3. - For S.C. 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced), a link inside of a paragraph of text and a pin on a map would fit the normative exceptions of "Inline" and "Essential" respectively, and so should be included as a passed exception in the Expectation. - - For S.C. 3.3.1: Error Identification, a page should not be applicable for an ACT rule until a form field error indicator exists, thus the presence of a form field error indicator should included in the rule's applicability. + - For S.C. 3.3.1: Error Identification, a page should not be applicable for an ACT rule until a form field error indicator exists, thus the presence of a form field error indicator should be included in the rule's applicability. When making these determinations, it maybe helpful to consider the following circumstances: - If there was a page with only the content in question, would you expect it to be passed or inapplicable for an ACT rule. Passing would indicate the subjectivity belongs in the Expectation while inapplicable suggests it belongs in the Applicability. From 9574e355fe00f5e486716e33f50e47a6b87df97f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Trevor Bostic Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:54:44 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 7/8] Clarifying text. --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index eedd7b211e..afd5c98d72 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ While optional, this can provide information on authors, previous authors, and o Applicability describes which (elements of) web pages should be tested using the rule. These elements are known as test targets. Applicability must be written in plain language, as well-formed grammatically correct sentences, so that it can be used by QA testers. Applicability must rely on well defined properties of the technologies that are tested. For instance, a rule may be applicable to all `video` elements, but it can not be applicable to all `object` elements used to show video, unless the term "video" is further defined. -The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past, exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can now be directly placed in the applicability. This is the recommended approach when the test subject is inapplicable, instead of artifically making the test subject pass the rule by having the subjectivity in the expectation (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. +The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past, exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can now be directly placed in the applicability. Placing exceptions in the Applicability is now the recommended approach when the test subject is inapplicable, instead of artifically making the test subject pass the rule by having the subjectivity in the expectation (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_. From 276c4433b411f9b93bfc700423af1078143b2924 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Trevor Bostic Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:57:43 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 8/8] Spelling error. --- pages/design/rule-design.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md index afd5c98d72..03f58f10e8 100755 --- a/pages/design/rule-design.md +++ b/pages/design/rule-design.md @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ While optional, this can provide information on authors, previous authors, and o Applicability describes which (elements of) web pages should be tested using the rule. These elements are known as test targets. Applicability must be written in plain language, as well-formed grammatically correct sentences, so that it can be used by QA testers. Applicability must rely on well defined properties of the technologies that are tested. For instance, a rule may be applicable to all `video` elements, but it can not be applicable to all `object` elements used to show video, unless the term "video" is further defined. -The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past, exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can now be directly placed in the applicability. Placing exceptions in the Applicability is now the recommended approach when the test subject is inapplicable, instead of artifically making the test subject pass the rule by having the subjectivity in the expectation (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. +The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past, exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can now be directly placed in the applicability. Placing exceptions in the Applicability is now the recommended approach when the test subject is inapplicable, instead of artificially making the test subject pass the rule by having the subjectivity in the expectation (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_.