On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:52, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: 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