Talk:ACT Deliverables

Section "Overview"

• Question: "The second part is an implementation of this method, a software product that can be used in this project to ensure a high degree of accuracy of rules that get published in the ACT Rule Suite." What is the purpose of this software product? In my understanding the rules in the ACT Rule Suite correspond to the test cases of auto-WCAG. So at this stage there is no implementation (or code) that could be processed by a software product.

Section "1. ACT Definition"

• Incomplete sentence: "How user testing and automated testing come together in ACT Rules for a "
• Suggestion: Move "Rule validation: How to ensure cause (unexpected) false positives. " to the Benchmark deliverable.

Section "2. ACT Benchmark"

• Suggestion: Could we refer to the definition of validity introduced in M. Vigo and G. Brajnik. Automatic web accessibility metrics: Where we are and where we can go. Interacting With Computers 2011 23(2):137-155, 2011.:
  

Validity. This attribute is related to the extent to which the measurements obtained by a metric reflect the accessibility of the website to which it is applied.

Section "3. W3C ACT Rule Suite"

• Wording: Change "inconformance" to "nonconformance".
• Question: What is the purpose of keeping "less accurate rules"?
• Suggestion: Could we focus the collaboration of auto-WCAG and ACT TF on the WCAG core ruleset? (This should be the main outcome. auto-WCAG can maintain several rulesets but ACT TF should not be involved with all of them.)

General

• We need a process to maintain/update the rules. Similar the the WCAG techniques there will be new developments and technologies that might influence the way web accessibility is tested. ACT TF need to define an approach to review the rules regularly. This could be part of deliverable 1.

Annika Nietzio (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)