Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Clarify the definition of Rule Aggregation #165

Closed
rdeltour opened this issue Feb 1, 2018 · 0 comments · Fixed by #283
Closed

Clarify the definition of Rule Aggregation #165

rdeltour opened this issue Feb 1, 2018 · 0 comments · Fixed by #283
Labels
For CR

Comments

@rdeltour
Copy link
Member

rdeltour commented Feb 1, 2018

Section 9.3 Rule Aggregation does not properly define the aggregation mechanism. In its current state it’s mostly a description of the issue. We should consider expanding this section to properly define how rule’s results should be aggregated.

Also, having this section in "Rule Quality Assurance" looks a bit odd.
@rdeltour rdeltour mentioned this issue May 17, 2018
Closed
@maryjom maryjom added For CR and removed editorial labels Oct 1, 2018
@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers mentioned this issue Oct 11, 2018
Merged
WilcoFiers added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 14, 2018
@WilcoFiers
CR Proposal (#283)
e4084af 
### Issues resolved by this PR: 

- Clear split between requirements for rule authors vs. rule implementers : Closes #272
- Need a definition of Test Target : Closes #271
- 16. Rule Aggregation - Add Requirement : Closes #252
- Accessibility Requirements: Updates requested (Shadi) : Closes #250
- 15.2. Accuracy Benchmarking - Update definition : Closes #236
- Outcomes of atomic tests : Closes #235
- clarifying the relationship between rule application and accessibility conformance : Closes #227
- ACT i18n checks : Closes #226
- Clarify the definition of Rule Aggregation : Closes #165
- Clarify how to do "Implementation validation" and "accuracy benchmarking" for manual or semi-automated rules : Closes #163
- Clarify the output format definition : Closes #162
- Mark all Informative sections as such : Closes #280
- "Failed" / "Passed" or "Fail"/"Pass"? : Closes #279
- Require Rule ID's in Atomic Rule List : Closes #261
- Scope sections states ACT rules should not be used for conformance : Closes #281
- Section “13. Accessibility Support” unclear : Closes #221
- Examples need to be identified accessibly : Closes #187

### Outstanding discussions before CR: 

- List of features for exit criteria #224

### Outstanding editorials before CR:

- Need non-versioned biblio reference tags #216


<!--
    This comment and the below content is programatically generated.
    You may add a comma-separated list of anchors you'd like a
    direct link to below (e.g. #idl-serializers, #idl-sequence):

    Don't remove this comment or modify anything below this line.
    If you don't want a preview generated for this pull request,
    just replace the whole of this comment's content by "no preview"
    and remove what's below.
-->
***
<a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/283.html" title="Last updated on Oct 12, 2018, 12:04 PM GMT (1776294)">Preview</a> | <a href="https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wcag-act/283/38370ea...1776294.html" title="Last updated on Oct 12, 2018, 12:04 PM GMT (1776294)">Diff</a>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
For CR
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

CR Proposal w3c/wcag-act
3 participants
@rdeltour @WilcoFiers @maryjom