Some thoughts on potential issues, and alignment with ACT

[WilcoFiers]

I wanted to see if there might be some potential to align this project with related efforts happening at the W3C, in the Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force. We've been developing rules for accessibility testing for several years now. It strikes me that there is quite a lot of overlap with the potential issues you have listed:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/

Something else quite interesting about that is that we've been tracking which tools are consistent with which rules. We have hundreds of tests to verify consistency, you can find the reports of them here:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/implementations/

The benefit of using these rules is that they've been thoroughly vetted by accessibility experts. It helps reduce some of the biases I'm seeing on the site. For example "Banner Element With Incorrect Parent" should probably not be listed as a Level A issue. I understand the logic of listing that as part of SC 1.3.1, but that's probably overly strict.

One key difference between what you've done and what we're doing in ACT is linters. ACT hasn't started looking at consistency with linters yet. That'd be a very interesting project to take on, if there was a linter interested in testing consistency with ACT rules.

[MelSumner]

@WilcoFiers thanks for taking the time to look through this and share some feedback.

This project came entirely from the perspective of linters to start and then added in testing too.

I'll look at the ways that I can integrate ACT into this, or point to it as a resource; as a member of the WAI-ARIA working group myself, I am definitely interested in alignment; initially I saw this as a gap (and not as a competing project). 👍