[Kathy provides example of hierarchy for SC 1.1.1 checking]
[discussion on whether ACT Rules Format is too restrictive for combining using higher-level logics]
WF: selectors come over as prefering one
approach over the other
... also need to look at test procedures
https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/
SAZ: suggest dropping "test mode" and adding "test cases" link to the listing, to emphasize focus on test cases as the criterion for meeting a rule
WF: people want to know what to expect
SAZ: if we link to "implementations", with matrix of tools and how they support each test cases, then users get more granular information for themselves
KW: how do rules groups work?
WF: working on that
SES: business need is to ensure transparency
SAZ: you get more granular transparency using information on test case level
SES: but tool does not necessarily implement the rules
WF: higher level question of trust
... but need to balance between being too prescriptive and providing
trust
<rdeltour> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues
<scribe> ACTION: Skotkjerra to provide an example for https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/138
<trackbot> Created ACTION-24 - Provide an example for https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/138 [on Stein Erik Skotkjerra - due 2017-11-17].
[see GitHub for discussion outcomes]