20 Mar
2019
20 Mar
'19
6 p.m.
On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:52, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Actually we can even run HTML_CodeSniffer inside a functional UI test and using Selenium’s
ability to execute js, as shown here:
https://github.com/squizlabs/HTML_CodeSniffer/issues/227#issuecomment-41820…
Another, even better, option could to be develop an XWiki Extension to execute
HTML_CodeSniffer on a wiki page so that advanced xwiki users can make sure that the wiki
pages they develop are WCAG compatible. We would generate the report somewhere in a given
format.
Then, inside a functional UI test we would navigate to all wiki pages and execute that
XWiki Extension and then the test would check the generated report and report errrors.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:34, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi Caty and all,
Thanks for this investigation. I’ve checked the links you gave and checked out a lot of
them.
The best one I’ve seen and the best candidate I've found is
http://squizlabs.github.io/HTML_CodeSniffer/
It's under a BSD license, maintained, and working well from the tests I've done
on myxwiki.org and xwiki.org.
It's in JS (normal and BTW our current WCAG validator is missing checks because of
that) and can be run standalone on the command line with a headless browser (PhantomJS for
ex).
Actually PhantomJS is oldish and the simplest is probably to provide a Docker image in
which we have Chrome Headless set up for ex.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> See https://github.com/squizlabs/HTML_CodeSniffer
>
> Note that it’s also the tool used by CKEditor’s Accessibility Checker AFAIK.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> On 3 Oct 2018, at 16:27, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <valicac(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I've started to analyze the 971 tests failing on webstandards related to
>> the WCAG validation.
>> I plan to create issues in order for us to fix the errors. The problem I
>> have is that we were validating against the Dutch Guidelines validation
>> tool (previously http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/testing) but this
>> tool has been discontinued by the Dutch Ministry in July 2017, see
>>
https://www.digitoegankelijk.nl/onderwerpen/testen/nieuws/2017/04/25/gewoon…
>>
>> The difference between the W3C WCAG rules (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/) and
>> the Dutch Guidelines was that the latest were more strict. Also WCAG
>> specification advanced to version 2.1 in Jun 2018.
>>
>> Since I don't have much experience in the way we've implemented the
>> validator, I'm asking if anyone has any idea of another validator we could
>> replace this one with (in case we want this). Else, I will try to
>> investigate and find a replacement for a new reference validator.
>>
>> Currently the plan is to fix our code to match the current definitions and
>> in cases that are not covered by W3C WCAG and where we want to add
>> "exceptions" I test also online on:
>> * https://ckeditor.com/ckeditor-4/accessibility-checker/ and
>> * http://wave.webaim.org/
>> Let me know if you have any objections to the 2 tools mentioned above.
>>
>> I've started the investigation at:
>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/WCAG10x
>> we can discuss each error and "exception" on the individual issues.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Caty