-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
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
Conversation
Add Secondary requirements and accessibility support conclusion
act-rules-format/act-rules-format.bs
Outdated
@@ -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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 to "should"
act-rules-format/act-rules-format.bs
Outdated
@@ -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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 to "should"
act-rules-format/act-rules-format.bs
Outdated
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. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
Co-authored-by: Wilco Fiers <[email protected]>
SHA: 8ea041a Reason: push, by daniel-montalvo Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
SHA: 8ea041a Reason: push, by daniel-montalvo Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Add Secondary requirements and accessibility support conclusion from act-rules/act-rules.github.io#2095