tewip-ai 0.69.8 → 0.69.9

package/dist/cli/help.js

@@ -152,7 +152,9 @@ Usage:
                                     report and it reads that too - Lighthouse runs axe rules, so
                                     either works. Contrast moves out of the unchecked list, rules
                                     that map to no WCAG criterion are reported as advice rather than
-                                    barriers (51 of 174 findings on nine real pages), and what the
+                                    barriers (51 of 174 findings on nine real pages run through axe;
+                                    a Lighthouse report runs a WCAG-aligned subset and produced 2 of
+                                    363 on six real pages, so expect little advice from one), and what the
                                     tool could not determine becomes a question. Lighthouse's ten
                                     manual checks are questions too, never passes. No model, no cost.
   tewip standards [--diff main...HEAD] [--strict] [--out standards.md]

package/dist/engine/access/render.js

@@ -61,17 +61,36 @@ export function renderAccess(result, scanned) {
     }
     else {
         const stopping = barriers.filter((f) => blocks(f.rule)).length;
-        const counts = [
-            `${barriers.length} ${barriers.length === 1 ? 'barrier' : 'barriers'} (${stopping} that stop somebody outright)`,
-            `${questions.length} for a person to settle`,
-        ];
-        if (accepted.length > 0)
-            counts.push(`${accepted.length} already accepted`);
+        const counts = [];
         if (browser) {
-            counts.unshift(`${browser.barriers.length} barriers the browser run proves`);
-            if (browser.questions.length > 0)
-                counts.push(`${browser.questions.length} the browser could not determine`);
+            // How many **rules**, then how many places. On Hacker News the browser count was "244
+            // barriers", of which **238 were one rule** - colour contrast - on one page. The number was
+            // arithmetically right and told the reader nothing they could act on: five things are wrong
+            // here, one of them in 238 places. A count of occurrences presented as a count of problems
+            // makes a page look hopeless and hides which five things to fix.
+            const rules = new Set(browser.barriers.map((f) => f.rule)).size;
+            counts.push(browser.barriers.length === 0
+                ? 'no barrier in the browser run'
+                : `${rules} ${rules === 1 ? 'barrier' : 'barriers'} the browser run proves, in ${browser.barriers.length} ${browser.barriers.length === 1 ? 'place' : 'places'}`);
+        }
+        // And this count is from reading markup, which the sentence never said. Beside a browser count
+        // also called "barriers", a reader saw "244 barriers..., 0 barriers" and could not tell whether
+        // the second number corrected the first. With no markup read at all there is no count to give:
+        // zero files examined is not a finding of zero.
+        if (filesRead > 0) {
+            counts.push(`${barriers.length} ${barriers.length === 1 ? 'barrier' : 'barriers'} in the markup (${stopping} that stop somebody outright)`);
+            counts.push(`${questions.length} for a person to settle`);
+        }
+        else if (!browser) {
+            counts.push('no markup file was read, so nothing was checked');
         }
+        else if (questions.length > 0) {
+            counts.push(`${questions.length} for a person to settle`);
+        }
+        if (accepted.length > 0)
+            counts.push(`${accepted.length} already accepted`);
+        if (browser && browser.questions.length > 0)
+            counts.push(`${browser.questions.length} the browser could not determine`);
         lines.push(`**${counts.join(', ')}.**`, '');
     }
     if (browser) {
@@ -82,8 +101,15 @@ export function renderAccess(result, scanned) {
     section('Only a person can settle these', [...questions].sort(worstFirst), lines);
     if (browser && browser.advice.length > 0) {
         // Kept out of the counts above on purpose. These are axe's own best-practice rules, which test
-        // no standard: on nine real pages they were 51 of 174 findings, outnumbering every real barrier.
-        // Reporting them as equals is how a team learns to ignore the whole report.
+        // no standard: on nine real pages **run through axe** they were 51 of 174 findings, outnumbering
+        // every real barrier. Reporting them as equals is how a team learns to ignore the whole report.
+        //
+        // That 51-of-174 is an axe number and only an axe number. Measured again on six real pages
+        // through **Lighthouse** - gov.uk, MDN, Hacker News, python.org, w3.org/WAI, Wikipedia - advice
+        // was 2 of 363 findings, 0.6%, because Lighthouse's accessibility category runs a WCAG-aligned
+        // subset of axe and leaves nearly all the best-practice rules out. Both numbers are real; a
+        // published one without the condition it was measured under is the kind of claim this project
+        // exists to stop making.
         const rules = [...new Set(browser.advice.map((f) => f.rule))].sort();
         lines.push('## Advice, not barriers', '');
         lines.push(`${browser.advice.length} ${browser.advice.length === 1 ? 'finding comes' : 'findings come'} from axe rules that map to no WCAG criterion - ` +

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "tewip-ai",
-  "version": "0.69.8",
+  "version": "0.69.9",
   "mcpName": "io.github.hmamut39/tewip",
   "description": "Tewip finds why each failing test failed - real bug, flaky test, environment, test data or changed selector - for any stack, from the command line, CI, or your editor.",
   "keywords": [