26 Nov
2018
26 Nov
'18
12:29 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:00 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Yes, we just need to have a filter a little bit more advanced than
"hidden=false". We could imagine a white list of xclasses (which would
have priority over "hidden=false" filter).
Now for the specific panels use case we actually have a place where
they are all displayed and validated all at once: the administration.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
remove WCAG
for that and it’s the simplest ;)) but about being the right
thing to do for people with disabilities.
> 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:
>>
>> 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.
Note that the question is not so much about being simple (we can just
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).
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.
I agree. The issue is that we can have hidden pages that:
* are not displayed by default (I'm thinking panels) * are included / displayed dynamically with JavaScript
so they won't appear
in the HTML downloaded by our WCAG tests (I'm thinking of async panels and
modals for instance)
Validating DOM generated in javascript is indeed a problem we already
have. Now for the few cases which are actually wiki pages included
asynchronously and which don't fit in a generic xclass based filter we
could add them trough the existing URL list property.
About async panels, most of them are also cached which means they are
really asyn only when loading the first page (when the framework find
a cached content is return it instead of putting an async
placeholder).
So they won't be covered.
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > >
> > >> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
--
Thomas Mortagne