shadi: I added edits. common aspects changed to input aspect
<trevor> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/326/files
wilco: need this for CR
shadi to process comments
<MoeKraft> Here's a link to the draft html https://api.csswg.org/bikeshed/?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/wcag-act/b89b3e07c0e88529a3843c917e545999d67a8a52/NOTE-act-rules-common-aspects.bs
<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322/files#diff-9ac0a6633720a5535b0a53cba04ababeR515
wilco: last week discussed defining "meets expectation"
shadi: composite rules - expectations of test targets and expectations of multiple test targets.
... applicability is every image, expectation is 85% of images; this does not match
... change to ALL images for the applicability if expectation is testing of multiple images
... scope of applicability and expectation match
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322/files#r248657828
<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322/files#r252149502
wilco: applicability defines a set of test targets. ex: on a web page, a set of 0 or more elements that expectation are applied to.
shadi: if expectation is every test target has accname, each image on page...
... clarification on when expectation applies to each item or the entire set
<anne_thyme> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/322/files#r252226353
anne: line 527: when 1 video, expectation of 80% is not clear
wilco: options: . open ended meets exp, 2. aggregation rule that apply exp to a set, 3. do complex aggregation in accessibility mapping
shadi: if expectation always apply to entire set needs to be clarified
... line 342, use of "each" is different from entire set
... rewrite to "all" test targets
wilco: no clear definition of pass/fail for indiv test targets
... for reporting
shadi: if only for reporting, create a reporting section
wilco: maybe in an informal reporting section
anne: this seems very illogical
... reason for change?
shadi: spec is at test subject level
... outcome is for test subject fail/pass
... reporting could be additional info
anne: standard spec for test target level. additional level how does test subject relate
wilco: how would that be written?
in manual testing, we aren't able to report a percentage of elements
<shadi> 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 web page are to be tested, and when those elements are considered to fail the rule. These rules should be kept small and atomic. Meaning that atomic rules test a single "failure condition", and do so without using results from other rules.
wilco: who would object to current pull request going into CR?
<trevor> +1
<anne_thyme> -1
+1 if don't object
<Wilco> +1
<MoeKraft> +1 don't object
<romain> +0.5 (not sure I fully grasp it)
wilco: CR = candidate recommendation
<cpandhi> +5.0 (not having a very good understanding of the problem)
anne: objection is for text that conflict and unclear examples
<twalters> -1 group unclear on direction.
anne: applicability is always all in test subject. examples and wording is unclear
shadi: rules always apply to test subject. exp apply to entire set of test targets. change from indiv elements pass/fail
<maryjom> 0 (Not being a test rule developer, I don't understand the implications, so I can't really say)