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.

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

Update act-rules-format.bs for secondary req and acc support #540

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 30, 2023

Conversation

kengdoj
Copy link
Collaborator

@kengdoj kengdoj commented Aug 24, 2023

Add Secondary requirements and accessibility support conclusion from act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2095

Add Secondary requirements and accessibility support conclusion
@@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ A secondary accessibility requirement is a requirement that is correlated with t

When the rule is not designed to test the accessibility requirement, or failed outcomes of the rule still require further testing for the accessibility requirement, the rule <em class="rfc2119">may</em> map the accessibility requirement as Secondary. When an ACT rule maps to a Secondary requirement, it <em class="rfc2119">must</em> include an explanation of why that requirement is Secondary in the Background section of the rule.

When the rule is designed to test an accessibility requirement, limitations or differences in [accessibility support](#accessibility-support) shall not be a reason for that requirement to be a secondary accessibility requirement.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we replace "shall" with either "should" or "must"?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    +1 to "should"         

@@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ A secondary accessibility requirement is a requirement that is correlated with t

When the rule is not designed to test the accessibility requirement, or failed outcomes of the rule still require further testing for the accessibility requirement, the rule <em class="rfc2119">may</em> map the accessibility requirement as Secondary. When an ACT rule maps to a Secondary requirement, it <em class="rfc2119">must</em> include an explanation of why that requirement is Secondary in the Background section of the rule.

When the rule is designed to test an accessibility requirement, limitations or differences in [accessibility support](#accessibility-support) shall not be a reason for that requirement to be a secondary accessibility requirement.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    +1 to "should"         

Comment on lines 229 to 230
When the rule is designed to test an accessibility requirement, limitations or differences in [accessibility support](#accessibility-support) shall not be a reason for that requirement to be a secondary accessibility requirement.

Copy link
Contributor

@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo Sep 4, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure about the word "limitations" here. Does not "differences" express by itself what we mean here?

@kengdoj kengdoj changed the title Update act-rules-format.bs Update act-rules-format.bs for secondary req and acc support Sep 14, 2023
@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo merged commit 8ea041a into main Nov 30, 2023
3 checks passed
@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo deleted the kengdoj-secreq-accsupport branch November 30, 2023 17:51
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2023
SHA: 8ea041a
Reason: push, by daniel-montalvo

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2023
SHA: 8ea041a
Reason: push, by daniel-montalvo

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants