Accessibility Requirements: Updates requested (Shadi)

[moekraft]

Editor’s note: The ACT Task Force is looking for feedback about the use of the term "pass" in relation to rules. While rules can "pass", their corresponding accessibility requirement can fail. A section has been added to make this explicit in the rule, but we would like to know if this is sufficient.
Accessibility requirements are just that: A requirement that content must conform to for it to be considered accessible. These are usually WCAG success criteria but can include other requirements too. For example, an organization might have additional requirements, such as local laws or internal standards. These too are considered accessibility requirements and can be tested using ACT Rules. What the precise requirements are for any particular test is beyond the scope of the ACT Rules Format.
ACT Rules SHOULD identify the accessibility requirements that are not met when the outcome of a rule is Fail. An ACT Rule is a complete or partial test for one or more accessibility requirements. However, an ACT rule MUST NOT test more than the accessibility requirements it lists.
ACT Rules MUST indicate when they can not be used to determine that the accessibility requirement passed.
Outcomes from an ACT Rule SHOULD be consistent with the accessibility requirement, e.g. a rule only returns the outcome Fail when the content does not meet the accessibility requirement. This means that the rule maps to the accessibility requirement, as opposed to it merely being related to the requirement, thematically or otherwise. Because of this, atomic rules used in composed rules often do not map to any accessibility requirement. Failing the composed rule fails the accessibility requirement, but failing any of its atomic rules may not. In such cases the atomic rules MUST NOT list the accessibility requirements. These could be provided as background information instead.

Comments:

1. An example is needed for this statement, ACT Rules MUST indicate when they can not be used to determine that the accessibility requirement passed.

2. Is this a rule or precondition? _. In such cases the atomic rules MUST NOT list the accessibility requirements.
   Accessibility Conformance Testing.docx
   _

[WilcoFiers]

Comment 2 for discussion.

[maryjom]

Meeting notes: The group wants the intent to be the same but more specific on when rules MUST indicate the accessibility requirement and when they MUST be consistent with the accessibility requirement and what conditions where this is a MUST NOT condition.

[maryjom]

@moekraft Can you edit the content here with help from @nitedog to propose a change to the group based on the discussion and meeting notes? (see above comment)