-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Updating CG writing guidance with example removed from ACT format doc. #2156
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
513d49f
796f219
b1ebf1b
451d891
c606ac7
2e0b30a
9574e35
276c443
0f5e02d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -105,10 +105,26 @@ 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 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."_. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
### 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 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
Comment on lines
+116
to
+119
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
consistent with WCAG acronym (I'm not sure we have best practices as ACT on how to consistently present some common words, but I think this is more appropriate and consitent with WCAG documentation). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
- 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
When making these determinations, it maybe helpful to consider the following circumstances: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
- 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
I think "content in question" should be replaced with "specific example", since "Example" is the word we use for each test case. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
- 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) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
rewording a little bit to improve clarity |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
reworded a little bit to improve clarity |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
For more details, see [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability). | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
## Expectations | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
consistent with wording above