<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/217/files
Wilco: Basically, update from the last week.
Have been looking at updating rule groups and turning them into composed
rules.
... Having to update a significant part of the rules format/making
significant edits. Had to make a bunch of additional edits.
Wilco: The first real change starts in section 3, which is rule types.
-- few minutes for reading --
Maureen: The second statement in the opening paragraph, I would recommend the use of 'big' be changed.
<Wilco> The separation between atomic rules and composed rules creates a division of responsibly. Atomic rules test if web content correctly implemented a particular solution.
Wilco: Looking for feedback on the first few sentences of the second paragraph (after atomic and composed rules are defined)
Anne: Personally find it a bit hard to understand, but will review it later.
Romain: The rule basically checks a technique, but doesn't really describe the technique. I think it could be editing, possibly reword as the "checking of techniques"
Wilco: I think the use of the word "techniques" is a bit of a loaded word. I have tried to remove it from other places in the document. I agree with Romain, the word "technique" should not be used
Romain: Similar comment on the atomic rule description. I think the words "type of content" may be vague.
Wilco: Broke the rule structure into two pieces. One for Atomic and one for composed. Similar structure for both, but a couple differents
Anne: Is the order meant to be different?
Wilco: No, will put it on my list of actions
... One of the things we did here, if you look at section 11
(Aggregation Definition), it has an applicability and expectations
definition. Applicability in a composed rule is similar to explicitly
stating the atomic rules it is made up from.
... I think we are trying to do some more editorial work. We are trying
to release a draft. Then send out a survey on monday, and try to make a
decision next Thursday.
-- Group of volunteers to help with editorial work tomorrow --
Romain: Wondering if we could combine the outlines of both atomic and composed rule, and make the distinctions in the subsections
MoeKraft: Allistair raised the concern that we cant confidently say that it fails an accessibility requirement since we may not necessarily testing for all solutions.
Wilco: I have tried to put that into this
proposal. We will need to review if I was explicit enough about that.
... I added a section for that in Scope. The last paragraph in scope
tries to explicitly state this issue.
... I added a requirement that if you write a rule that you can't use to
decide if an accessibility requirement passes, then you must make that
explicit.
Wilco: One of the things I looked at in this
update was what do we call a result and what do we call an outcome.
... An outcome is a pass/fail/inapplicable. A result is a slightly
larger object which contains a test case, a test subject, an outcome,
and a pointer.
... I do think that when we are talking about aggregation, we are
talking about aggregating the result and not just the outcome
MaryJo: Do we have a definition somewhere that states the difference between result and outcome?
Wilco: We do have a section about what an outcome is, but not about what a result is.
<Wilco> Conclusion: Result aggregation is correct. We should add references to "result" and "outcome" as defined in EARL.
+1
<maryjom> +1
<romain> +1
<MoeKraft> +1
-- Looking at section 14 --
Wilco: Outlines what needs to included in
the result.
... For comparable results, is leftover from a previous version. I think
this clears things up by removing the section.
<Wilco> https://w3c.github.io/wcag-act/act-rules-format.html#output-comparable
Wilco: Anyone disagree that this section is
redundant.
... I will mark this section as under review.
Romain: I think generally, the entire output section will need to be reviewed due to the atomic and composed rules.
Wilco: Applicability must not be limited by
one specific technology. We explored a while ago whether you could have
general rules, or have rules for all technology. Our conclusion was
maybe, but that it may also complicate the rule.
... If you write rules that are not for a specific set of technologies,
then your applicability is not objective. If you have an open list then
someone else will include technologies that others would not include.
Romain: We always define the aspects of the test, and the applicability depends on the aspects. Much easier to state if the applicability has been scoped.
Wilco: Need to explicitly state new technology in a rule, or create a new rule for that technology.
<Wilco> Conclusion: Rules should be tied to technologies, so that they remain unambiguous. Open ended rules lead to differences of interpretation. If a technology should be added, either the rule should be updated or a new rule should be created.
<maryjom> +1
<romain> +1
+1
<MoeKraft> +1
Wilco: ACT rules only test part of an
accessibility requirement. So you can pass a rule without passing the
accessibility requirement.
... I think we have addressed all of the DIFI comments. Want to create
responses and send them out to show them how we have addressed them.
... Two questions. TPAC, we are going to have an ACT meeting at TPAC.
Will probably be a thursday, friday meeting.
... Looking at organizing a meeting in London on the 29th and 30th of
October.
-- Planned meeting with Trevor, MoeKraft, MaryJo, Romain, Wilco --