Add note about language #521
Conversation
All rules with Language as input aspect currently have an assumption that the language is understood by the tester (so that, e.g., a tester can asses whether an accessible name is descriptive or not). Moving this requirement here.
NOTE-act-rules-common-aspects.bs
Outdated
| @@ -65,3 +65,5 @@ Language {#input-aspects-text} | |||
| Language, either written or spoken, contained in nodes of the DOM [[DOM]] or accessibility trees may be of interest to ACT Rules that intend to test things like complexity or intention of the language. For example, an ACT Rule might test that 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. | |||
|
|
|||
| The means by which the language is assessed, whether by a person or a machine, is not of importance as long as the assessment meets the criteria defined in [[wcag2-tech-req#humantestable]] [[WCAG]]. | |||
|
|
|||
| Rules with a Language input aspect can only be evaluated if the language can be determined (either programatically or by analysing content), and sufficiently understood. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Rules with a Language input aspect can only be evaluated if the language can be determined (either programatically or by analysing content), and sufficiently understood. | |
| Rules with a language input aspect can only be processed if the language can be determined, either programatically or by reading the content. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤔 The bit about "fully understood" comes from the current assumption in the rules and was here from the start (in act-rules/act-rules.github.io#996) The core reason being that in order to evaluate, say, "heading is descriptive", one doesn't only need to determine that the language is French, but also to actually understand it.
However, I am having trouble tracking down in details the discussions about that point 🙈 The formulation was suggested by Emma (act-rules/act-rules.github.io#996 (comment)) at which point I disagreed (act-rules/act-rules.github.io#996 (comment)) but it seems that the next answered convinced me because I ended up making that change (act-rules/act-rules.github.io@8add94d).
So, I'm not any more fully sure whether this bit is needed or not, but I wouldn't want to remove it as part of a "streamlining" PR of moving assumptions from one place to another.
* Merging the "language needs to be determined" bit with the existing "how it is assessed doesn't matter". * Extending the "language needs to be understood" bit with examples. * Replacing "evaluating a rule" by "the rule operates", following https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#input-aspects
Co-authored-by: Wilco Fiers <WilcoFiers@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@carlosapaduarte I went for @WilcoFiers suggestion. I think it was more consistent in its wording. |
|
Group has agreed on the change. Thank you for the great work @Jym77! |
All rules with Language as input aspect currently have an assumption that the language is understood by the tester (so that, e.g., a tester can asses whether an accessible name is descriptive or not).
Moving this requirement here.