Get rid of "Test/Aggregation Definition" #247
Conversation
Suggesting a different split of Applicability/Expectations sections for Atomic/Composed rules to get rid of headings "Test Defintion" and "Aggregation Definition"
Deleted some duplicate sections and moved up "Atomic rules list" to match the rule structure outline
Replaced words "aggregate"/"aggregated"/"aggregation" in context of composed rules, so that it is now only used in relation to ACT Data Format (Output Data)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi Anne, Nice work. I wonder if the paragraph beginning with "A composed rule defines how the outcomes from its atomic rules are used to determine a single outcome for each applicable test target. ..." should be moved to the applicability section for composed rules as well. This would address Shadi's comment as well.
Moved the paragraph "A composed rule defines how the outcomes from its atomic rules are used to determine a single outcome for each applicable test target. ..." from Rule Types section to Applicability for Composed Rules section as per Shadi's and Moe's comments, and deleted paragraph on disabling rules due to accessibility support concerns, since it already differs from what Siteimprove is working on.
|
@moekraft, thanks for the comment! Should be fixed now. It also handles Shadi's comment around the same thing. |
|
@annethyme Hi Anne, I ran the code through Bikeshed and found a broken target. Under Aspects under test there is a statement that reads [=Atomic rules=] MUST list the aspects used in the Test Definition. Since the heading Test Definition has been removed, this anchor is no longer valid. Can you take a look at the Aspects section. I think it needs updating to reflect your changes. Thanks much! Moe |
|
@annethyme I assigned to you so you will be notified to look at Moe's last comment posted 3 days ago. |
Tackling Moe's comment.
#test-applicability changed to #applicability
Change #test-applicability to #applicability
Change #test-expectations to #expectations
|
Please note that I needed to resolve conflicts with the updates to change composed rule to composite rule. @annethyme Please ensure that I did not break your changes during the resolving of conflicts. Thanks, Moe |
Removed rogue line break
Fixed another rogue line break
|
Suggest including that Rule Identifiers and Rule Descriptions are required in the Composite rules' Atomic Rule List under section 9. Agree with @cpandhi about Example 5 under section 11.2. With rule identifiers, Example 5 could be: |
Remove duplicate "Video elements have an audio description"
Add rule ids to composite rule example.
<ul>
<li>Video elements have an audio description (video-audio-desc)</li>
<li>Video elements have a media alternative (video-text-alt)</li>
</ul>
Suggesting a different split of Applicability/Expectations sections for Atomic/Composed rules to get rid of headings "Test Defintion" and "Aggregation Definition"
Closes #237
Preview | Diff