22 Nov
2018
22 Nov
'18
10:22 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah
<adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Note that the question is not so much about being simple (we can just remove WCAG for
that and it’s the simplest ;)) but about being the right thing to do for people with
disabilities.
For me we have the following options:
A) We don’t think that this check is useful, ie that it brings advantages for people with
disabilities and then we can remove it. No need to add exceptions.
B) We think the check is useful for people with disabilities and we should keep it, even
for translations pages since I don’t see why people with disabilities shouldn’t be able to
use translation pages. There are some ideas to fix this: I listed some in the jira issue
and Thomas mentioned one too (it’s option D).
Hi everyone,
one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about consecutive
line breaks: basically a <br /><br /> presents in a page.
This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try to
sum-up here:
A. Remove completely this validation check
-0, I think the validation can be useful at least to keep good practices.
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one. C) Now I’m fine if we say the following: for technical
reasons it’s already hard to ensure that we pass WCAG for user pages and thus FTM we focus
only on those ones and we agree that we don’t pass WCAG for developer-oriented features,
with the goal of improving on that aspect in the future. And thus we disable WCAG checks
on technical pages (hidden pages) for now.
Excluding hidden page for now is indeed something that would make a
lot of sense.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2
consecutive breaks is
encountered
-1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but badly done.
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to
translation pages
+1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
>
>
> A. Remove completely the validation check
>
> pros:
> * the easiest one
> * apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
> its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
>
> cons:
> * IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not using
> <br />
>
> B. Add an exception for the translation pages
>
> pros:
> * same as for A
>
> cons:
> * ?
>
> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is encountered
>
> pros:
> * ?
>
> cons:
> * we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
> and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
> instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
>
> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
>
> pros:
> * remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in translations
> * can maybe be used to present them in another way?
>
> cons:
> * need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
>
> I'd personnaly vote like this:
> A: +0
> B: +1
> C: -1
> D: +0
>
> WDYT?
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com