Question on 4. Test Subject Types (Input) - like to see more than just html

[goodwitch]

4. Test Subject Types (Input Data) - The types listed here are so very, very html centric...I would love to see a few non-html types added. I get that you want to focus on HTML...but maybe add 1 or 2 non html types. Types to consider adding would be:

• Kiosk Screen
• Native Mobile App Screen
• Digital Documents
  • PDF
  • Word Doc
  • Excel Doc
  • PPT Doc
• email
• text message
• design comps
• speech interface
• virtual reality

[2biazdk]

On behalf of the Siteimprove team:

We agree that we should definitely extend the input types to things beyond just web content. Especially since we state in ACT that rules need not be geared towards web technology but can be extended to other technologies as well.

We also believe that our proposal on input requirements (#109) would be a good fit for technologies beyond web content, as it is likely particularly important that rules written for other technologies than web are precise about their input requirements. While the web is based on standards, a lot of other technologies are not and in these cases we need to be very specific about the requirements that our rules have. A good example of this would be the "email" suggestion.

While the examples we ourselves have listed are also very web-centric, we should of course extend them to be able to cover other technologies as well.

[rdeltour]

I tend to agree, although we do say earlier that the spec is particularly focused on content created using with Web technologies.

In any case, I think we should at least extend the current list to set of Web pages, which would include web apps, and, wait-for-it… EPUBs 😉

[kasperisager]

@goodwitch Would the newly added "Language" aspect do the trick?

wcag-act/act-rules-format.bs

Lines 118 to 122 in 2c20924

	### Language ### {#input-aspects-text}
	Language, either written or spoken, as available in nodes of the DOM or accessibility trees may be of interest to ACT Rules that wish to test things like complexity or intention of the language. For example, an ACT Rule might wish to test that certain paragraphs of text within the DOM tree do not exceed a certain readability score or that the text alternative of an image provides a sufficient description thereof.
	The means by which the language is assessed, be it by a person or a machine, is not of importance as long as the assessment meets the criteria defined in [[wcag2-tech-req#humantestable]].

[goodwitch]

@kasperisager I don't think that directly addresses my comment. I was thinking that this list:

The following test subject types are common in accessibility testing:

• HTTP Response
• DOM Tree
• Rendered Page
• Template
• Script

I'd like to see that list (in the future) expanded to include other digital assets like: PDF, MS Word, MS Excel, MS PPT, Native Mobile Apps, Desktop Software, Text Messages, Emails and more.

[WilcoFiers]

We're working on a change to the test aspects in #242. We should keep a W3C note around where we can add new test aspects as they are designed.

[WilcoFiers]

Should be addressed by PR #242. Ready for a vote

[WilcoFiers]

PR closed, issue resolved.