W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ACT TF Survey - Pull request reviews (Due 13 Sept.)

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: team-wcag-act-surveys@w3.org,maryjom@us.ibm.com,wilco.fiers@deque.com

This questionnaire was open from 2018-09-10 to 2018-09-13.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Review changes to Aspects Under Test section: Pull request #242
Review changes made to Test/Aggregation Definition: Pull request #247

1. Review changes to Aspects Under Test section: Pull request #242

This update was created to implement the suggestion made in Issue 233, which was to maintain a list of common aspects separate from the spec and only provide examples in the spec itself. Review the edits made in pull request #242 in Aspects Under Test section and the draft of a new working group note titled Accessibility Conformance Testing Rules: Common Aspects. Should pull request 242 be merged?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Yes	4
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	3
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request.

Details

Responder	Review changes to Aspects Under Test section: Pull request #242	Comments
Shadi Abou-Zahra	Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	I could not propose changes directly as a PR to the PR, so proposed changes in a comment on PR 242. Here are the changes too: [[ An aspect is a distinct part of the [Test Subject](#output-test-subject) or its underlying implementation. For example, rendering a particular piece of content to an end user can involve multiple different technologies, some or all of which can be of interest to an ACT Rule. Some rules need to operate directly on the [Hypertext Transfer Protocol](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230) [[http11]] messages exchanged between a server and a client, while others need to operate on the [Document Object Model](https://dom.spec.whatwg.org) [[DOM]] tree exposed by a web browser. Other rules need to operate on several aspects simultaneously, such as both the HTTP messages and the DOM tree. [=Atomic rules=] MUST list the aspects used in the [Test Definition](#test-def). Each aspect MUST be discrete with no overlap between the aspects. An atomic rule MUST include a description of all the aspects under test by the rule. Some aspects are already well defined within the context of web content, such as HTTP messages, DOM tree, and CSS styling [[CSS2]], and do not warrant a detailed description. Other aspects are not well defined or even specific to web content. In these cases, an ACT Rule SHOULD include either a detailed description of the aspect in question or a reference to that description. A list of common aspects for reference in ACT rules can be found in [Common Aspects under Test](https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/NOTE-act-rules-common-aspects.html). Since there is no Test Definition in Composed rules, there SHOULD NOT be an aspects under test list for composed rules. ]]
Romain Deltour	Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	+1 on the changes proposed by Shadi Also, I'm wondering what the following means exactly: "Each aspect MUST be discrete with no overlap between the aspects." Given that aspects are loosely defined. For instance, can't we consider there is some kind of "overlap" between HTTP message and DOM? My suggestion is to either remove the MUST or clarify. But this isn't related to issue #233, so I can create a new issue just for this if needed.
Anne Thyme Nørregaard	Yes	Kasper and Anne are fine with it being merged in, but we think the last example requires a bit of discussion before we choose to do so.
Charu Pandhi	Yes
Kathy Eng	Yes
Mary Jo Mueller	Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	I agree with Shadi's edits.
Maureen Kraft	Yes	Please note that Shadi's feedback is being addressed by Issue #257 https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/257 PR 242 is focused on updating Section 8.1 Common Aspects

2. Review changes made to Test/Aggregation Definition: Pull request #247

Proposed changes to resolve issue #241: Review/replace the term aggregation definition. Review the edits made to the Atomic Rules List (composite rules only) section - formerly the Test definitions section. Should pull request 247 be merged?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Yes	3
Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	4
No. I have left reasons for my objection in the comments of the pull request.

Details

Responder	Review changes made to Test/Aggregation Definition: Pull request #247	Comments
Shadi Abou-Zahra	Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	This sentence seems incorrect: "An expectation is an assertion that must be true about each test target (see Applicability)" because it contradicts this condition later on: "When all expectations are true for a test target". Maybe better: "An expectation is an assertion about each test target [within the rule], which is true when it meets the accessibility requirement" or: "An expectation is an assertion that is expected to be true about each test target [within the rule]"? Later on we define "expectation" differently: "An expectation is an assertion, written in plain language, that must be true about the outcomes of atomic rules listed in atomic rules list". A simple differentiator would be "An expectation of an atomic/composite rule is an assertion ...". Also, please rephrase to remove the word "must" (for editorial reasons but also because it does not actually have to be true -- same comment as for expectations of atomic rules). Are the expectations for atomic rules not also written in plain language? If so, then we need to add that to the definition of expectations for atomic rules too. For composite rules, should it be "test subject" in this sentence: "When all expectations are true for a test target, the test target passed the rule. If one or more expectations is false, the test target failed the rule"? Also, is it passed/failed the rule versus the accessibility requirement?
Romain Deltour	Yes
Anne Thyme Nørregaard	Yes	Two links were broken in the PR due to rogue line breaks. I fixed it in the PR. Kasper and Anne are fine with a merge.
Charu Pandhi	Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.
Kathy Eng	Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	Comment added to 247.
Mary Jo Mueller	Yes, with suggestions for improvements in the comments of the pull request.	I agree with some of Shadi's concerns and we should discuss the rest in the meeting.
Maureen Kraft	Yes