act-rules · Jym77 · Jan 8, 2026 · Feb 1, 2024 · Mar 6, 2024 · Mar 6, 2024
diff --git a/pages/design/rule-design.md b/pages/design/rule-design.md
@@ -105,10 +105,26 @@ While optional, this can provide information on authors, previous authors, and o
 
 Applicability describes which (elements of) web pages should be tested using the rule. These elements are known as test targets. Applicability must be written in plain language, as well-formed grammatically correct sentences, so that it can be used by QA testers. Applicability must rely on well defined properties of the technologies that are tested. For instance, a rule may be applicable to all `video` elements, but it can not be applicable to all `object` elements used to show video, unless the term "video" is further defined.
 
-Use objective, unambiguous definitions within applicability. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. The intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement.
+The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the  [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement.
-The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the  [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement.
+The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either inline or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the  [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past, exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability. This is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure the repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement.
-The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include a subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either in line or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the  [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability, this is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement.
+The applicability of a rule must be unambiguous and should be written using objective statements and in plain language. Finding objective definitions to use in rules can be difficult, if not outright impossible in some cases. New in version 1.1 of the ACT rules format is the ability to write rules using a subjective applicability. For rules that include subjectivity, it is preferred to include a list of features (either inline or as part of a definition) that describes how an element should be evaluated for matching the accessibility (see the "Styled as a Heading" example in the  [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability)). Additionally, in the past, exception statements have been included in the Expectation that can be placed in the applicability. This is the recommended approach when possible (see the "Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation" example below). As a reminder, the intent here is to ensure the repeatability of the rule. Not everything in WCAG testing is entirely repeatable, but when it comes to rule applicability, this is a hard requirement.
 
 > _For example:_ A rule testing that page titles are descriptive should only apply to specific `title` elements and this could be stated as _"This rule applies to the first HTML `title` element that is a descendant of the `html` element of a web page, and contains children that are text nodes that are not only whitespace."_.
 
+### Subjectivity in Applicability vs Expectation Examples
+
+With the development of ACT Rules format 1.1, subjectivity is now allowed in both the Applicability and the Expectation. However, depending on the rule, it can be difficult to know if a subjective phrase belongs in the Subjectivity or the Expectation. While we will continue to rely on the best judgment of the rule authors, most S.C. contain language suggesting where the subjectivity be placed. Lastly, at the bottom of this section we provide some concrete examples of each of the cases below to help illustrate our point. 
+
+When determining the placement of subjectivity in an ACT rule, the main question to answer is whether the S.C. would apply at all to the given content or if the content would satisfy the criteria via a normative exception. For example, 
+ - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, non-text content or text that is not expressing something in human language (like an emoji) is not evaluated by the S.C. and so should not be applicable in an ACT rule for 1.4.3
+ - For S.C. 1.4.3 Contrast Minimum, logos are a normative exception to the S.C., so they should be included as a passed exception to the Expectation for an ACT rule testing 1.4.3.
+ - For S.C. 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced), a link inside of a paragraph of text and a pin on a map would fit the normative exceptions of "Inline" and "Essential" respectively, and so should be included as a passed exception in the Expectation. 
+ - For S.C. 3.3.1: Error Identification, a page should not be applicable for an ACT rule until a form field error indicator exists, thus the presence of a form field error indicator should included in the rule's applicability.
+
+When making these determinations, it maybe helpful to consider the following circumstances:
+ - If there was a page with only the content in question, would you expect it to be passed or inapplicable for an ACT rule. Passing would indicate the subjectivity belongs in the Expectation while inapplicable suggests it belongs in the Applicability.
+ - Does the formulation of applicability and expectation lead to test cases that pass that should be inapplicable? If so, subjectivity likely needs to be added to the Applicability (possibility moved from the Expectation to the Applicability)
+
+As a final reminder, the end goal of allowing subjectivity in the applicability is allow the writing of rules that were previously impossible and to prevent rules from creating passed test cases that are inapplicable to the S.C. the rule is intended to test. 
+
 For more details, see [ACT Rules Format: Applicability](https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#applicability).
 
 ## Expectations