We mainly rely on the WCAG and HTML validators automated tests to cover the accessibility cases. IMO if we would want to provide more support for accessibility, the ideal strategy are the automated tests, otherwise it's very hard for someone else to try to mimic a behavior they know nothing about or don't have the proper tools (readers, setup) to do it. Testing WCAG manually needs a longer time to perform than a normal test and expertise to know what you are looking for.
In terms of usage, we don't have that many users that report this kind of issues (found 1 issue in 2016), but as you said we did better in the past, than now with the direction we are headed. We are lacking also in providing a dedicated color themes for color vision problems. We are also lacking in supporting and testing text bidirectionality (LTR and RTL). There are many directions where we could do improvements. Thanks, Caty On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just realized that: > > 1) we're not testing WCAG as part of our QA efforts (we have some basic > WCAG automated tests but they cover only a small part - see > http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Community/WCAGTesting). For ex we > don't test how readable our UIs are with a screen reader and how user can > use the UI without the mouse. > > 2) As we progress and make our UIs more "usable", for example by > replacing input fields with nice drag and drop UIs (see Applications Panel, > the new Nav Panel Admin in 10.5, etc), we actually make our UIs less usable > for persons with disabilities > > 3) We can always argue that everything can also be done by using the > object editor and thus we have a fallback. We have a way in the user > profile to indicate that the user is requesting accessibility. However when > active, we don't change the UI in lots of places (for example in the App > Panel admin UI, we don't point link to the object editor instead of > displaying the drag&drop). > > So I was wondering if we wanted to have a plan/direction for this. > > Seen the manpower we have I think we need to do the simplest thing that > can work. The objet editor is a good direction IMO. > > So IMO, if we wanted to improve XWiki accessibility, we should do: > > A) Have someone test with a screen reader and report issues > B) Have someone test without the mouse and report issues > C) Review places in the UI where we should check if accessibility is > active for the current user and if so, fallback to some links to the object > editor with some explanation text. Report issues > > WDYT? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > PS: I’m not saying we should do this now, but more making sure we have a > plan we agree on. > > > >
