[xwiki-devs] [WCAG] Fixing wiki edit mode validation
Hi, We have a few issues in the WCAG tests for our wiki edit mode (results are in http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/test/report/76745/182681/) : 1) "Use friendly URL's, that are readable and recognisable.". I believe this is caused by js present in javascript.vm which generate URLs like: var surl = "http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/cancel/Main/WebHome?ajax=1"; This is probably a pb with the WCAG test parser. However shouldn't we move the script in a JS file (maybe in xwiki.js)? If we don't move it then another rule that says that script element but have a noscript element specified will be triggered too. 2) "When using client-side script in combination with a link: if the link does not lead to anything, do not confront the visitor without support for client-side script with a non-working link." "Contains links which will not work if javascript is unavailable or switched off." Not sure what we should do with this one. Any idea? 3) "Use the th (table header) to describe a column or row in a table with relational information." The pb is in the Information Panel. <table summary="List of included documents" id="xwikiincludeddocuments"> <tbody> <tr><td><a href="/xwiki/bin/view/ Main/Dashboard">Main.Dashboard</a></td> <td class="xwikibuttonlink"><a href="/xwiki/bin/edit/Main/Dashboard">Edit</a></td></tr> </tbody> </ table> We need to decide if we consider it's valid or not. If the table is not a data table then it could be valid, as mentioned here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#tables-layout I have tried to find alternatives (like not using a table, adding headers) but none looks good to me. Should we consider our code is ok? Thanks -Vincent
On 11/24/2009 10:24 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
We have a few issues in the WCAG tests for our wiki edit mode (results are in http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/test/report/76745/182681/) :
1) "Use friendly URL's, that are readable and recognisable.". I believe this is caused by js present in javascript.vm which generate URLs like: var surl = "http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/cancel/Main/WebHome?ajax=1"; This is probably a pb with the WCAG test parser. However shouldn't we move the script in a JS file (maybe in xwiki.js)? If we don't move it then another rule that says that script element but have a noscript element specified will be triggered too.
Yes, the canceledit and cancelcanceledit logic would need to be revisited. I don't like it either, it's been bloating the source for too long.
2) "When using client-side script in combination with a link: if the link does not lead to anything, do not confront the visitor without support for client-side script with a non-working link." "Contains links which will not work if javascript is unavailable or switched off." Not sure what we should do with this one. Any idea?
I think that's the deprecated tagedit in the Document Information panel. It has a button that is actually hidden, so it should be safe to remove it.
3) "Use the th (table header) to describe a column or row in a table with relational information." The pb is in the Information Panel. <table summary="List of included documents" id="xwikiincludeddocuments"> <tbody> <tr><td><a href="/xwiki/bin/view/ Main/Dashboard">Main.Dashboard</a></td> <td class="xwikibuttonlink"><a href="/xwiki/bin/edit/Main/Dashboard">Edit</a></td></tr> </tbody> </ table> We need to decide if we consider it's valid or not. If the table is not a data table then it could be valid, as mentioned here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#tables-layout I have tried to find alternatives (like not using a table, adding headers) but none looks good to me. Should we consider our code is ok?
How about a plain list? The edit text could be replaced with a pencil icon via CSS, and a simple [edit] text right after the document name without style. -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
3) "Use the th (table header) to describe a column or row in a table with relational information." The pb is in the Information Panel. <table summary="List of included documents" id="xwikiincludeddocuments"> <tbody> <tr><td><a href="/xwiki/bin/view/ Main/Dashboard">Main.Dashboard</a></td> <td class="xwikibuttonlink"><a href="/xwiki/bin/edit/Main/Dashboard">Edit</a></td></tr> </tbody> </ table> We need to decide if we consider it's valid or not. If the table is not a data table then it could be valid, as mentioned here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#tables-layout I have tried to find alternatives (like not using a table, adding headers) but none looks good to me. Should we consider our code is ok?
How about a plain list? The edit text could be replaced with a pencil icon via CSS, and a simple [edit] text right after the document name without style.
or we could add the "# included documents:" in the <th> instead of in the < dt >
On 11/24/2009 03:38 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:
3) "Use the th (table header) to describe a column or row in a table with relational information." The pb is in the Information Panel. <table summary="List of included documents" id="xwikiincludeddocuments"> <tbody> <tr><td><a href="/xwiki/bin/view/ Main/Dashboard">Main.Dashboard</a></td> <td class="xwikibuttonlink"><a href="/xwiki/bin/edit/Main/Dashboard">Edit</a></td></tr> </tbody> </ table> We need to decide if we consider it's valid or not. If the table is not a data table then it could be valid, as mentioned here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#tables-layout I have tried to find alternatives (like not using a table, adding headers) but none looks good to me. Should we consider our code is ok?
How about a plain list? The edit text could be replaced with a pencil icon via CSS, and a simple [edit] text right after the document name without style.
or we could add the "# included documents:" in the<th> instead of in the< dt>
But that's not a data table. Does "edit" sound like tabular data? -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/24/2009 10:24 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
We have a few issues in the WCAG tests for our wiki edit mode (results are in http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/test/report/76745/182681/) :
1) "Use friendly URL's, that are readable and recognisable.". I believe this is caused by js present in javascript.vm which generate URLs like: var surl = "http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/cancel/Main/WebHome?ajax=1"; This is probably a pb with the WCAG test parser. However shouldn't we move the script in a JS file (maybe in xwiki.js)? If we don't move it then another rule that says that script element but have a noscript element specified will be triggered too.
Yes, the canceledit and cancelcanceledit logic would need to be revisited. I don't like it either, it's been bloating the source for too long.
2) "When using client-side script in combination with a link: if the link does not lead to anything, do not confront the visitor without support for client-side script with a non-working link." "Contains links which will not work if javascript is unavailable or switched off." Not sure what we should do with this one. Any idea?
I think that's the deprecated tagedit in the Document Information panel. It has a button that is actually hidden, so it should be safe to remove it.
This button is legacy, IIRC I added to be able to reuse the template from the doc footer when tag editing was available in the information tab. I think it's safe to remove it.
3) "Use the th (table header) to describe a column or row in a table with relational information." The pb is in the Information Panel. <table summary="List of included documents" id="xwikiincludeddocuments"> <tbody> <tr><td><a href="/xwiki/bin/view/ Main/Dashboard">Main.Dashboard</a></td> <td class="xwikibuttonlink"><a href="/xwiki/bin/edit/Main/Dashboard">Edit</a></td></tr> </tbody> </ table> We need to decide if we consider it's valid or not. If the table is not a data table then it could be valid, as mentioned here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#tables-layout I have tried to find alternatives (like not using a table, adding headers) but none looks good to me. Should we consider our code is ok?
How about a plain list? The edit text could be replaced with a pencil icon via CSS, and a simple [edit] text right after the document name without style.
+1. JV.
participants (4)
-
Ecaterina Valica -
Jean-Vincent Drean -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol