<Wilco> The applicability MUST only use information provided through test aspects. No other information should be used in the applicability.
<cpandhi> +1
shadi: maybe need to identify key terms like "test aspects"
wilco: not very consistent across the document
shadi: raise an issue on that?
wilco: done
shadi: need to say test aspects *of the same rule*?
wilco: yes, will make that change
romain: saying expectation allows some level of subjectivity, which might contradict being able to use test aspects from other expectations
wilco: don't see how
<rdeltour> +1 on the PR!
romain: agree, I revoke that
maryjo: editorial suggestion
wilco: done
maryjo: inconsitency across the rules
wilco: agree, need to be consistent
shadi: do we have a template?
wilco: no
maryjo: we should
wilco: yes, we should
shadi: test procedure -> test definition
... move "background" down, after "implementation tests"
maryjo: "issues" section
wilco: will be dynamic
shadi: implementation tests?
wilco: no, now called "test cases"
... render test aspects lower down in the template
... test requirements below description
shadi: want to think more about crediting
different contributors
... may come back with more suggestions
maryjo: change log entries sometimes miss required aspects
wilco: in the template
https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act-rules/
wilco: let's capture some of the requirements
#1. how should one use rules
#2. how does automated vs manual testing fit in
#3. how can one contribute rules
romain: rule aggregation unclear in the spec
shadi: think may need to be in the spec, not here
romain: maybe call it "Primer" rather than "Understanding"
shadi: think different from this?
wilco: often get questions, and need to explain background, motivation, and other aspects
#4. why ACT is important
<rdeltour> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/162
<rdeltour> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/165
https://www.w3.org/WAI/Tools/webinar1
Online Symposium ACT Rules for Manual Web Accessibility Evaluation Methodologies