CR Feedback Fernanda Bonnin

[WilcoFiers]

As Lisa Louise mentions it was thorough and understandable. The format of how the content was presented seems good too, I didn’t had to do a lot of jumping around to understand terms.

Two things that seem slightly confusing to me:

• Why would you want to do complex aggregation? (in the Note: Rules can be used to do complex aggregation by describing the logic in the expectations. e.g. "The test target (the page) has a text alternative for 80% of all img elements".)

• The document mentions that the rules can be evaluated: fully-automatically, semi-automatically, and manually. Then, in the implementations and data formats it's mentioned again with a description, but maybe an example of each type would be helpful.

[WilcoFiers]

Add a slight explanation go the note about "future guidelines".

Remove "semi-automatically" from the abstract.

[WilcoFiers]

@nitedog You're going to have to sort this one out. The abstract is part of Bikeshed. I can't change this in the repository.

[nitedog]

The abstract is in the front-matter -- see PR #376

[WilcoFiers]

Proposed response

Thank you for your feedback. With regard to complex aggregation, the idea was to provide some insight into how future accessibility standards could go beyond a "pass or fail" model of accessibility. As for fully automated, semi-automated and manual. Those terms come from the Evaluation And Reporting Language (EARL). We acknoweldge that their use without further definition could be confusiong. Based on this feedback we have decided to avoid using the terms all together, as they serve no purpose in the ACT Rules Format.

[nitedog]

Some clarification added to the note, also to address issue #335