On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:28 PM Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> 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-toegankelijk-stopt > > 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.
Our validator is indeed very old. If we could find some Java W3C WCAG validator to replace ours that would be great IMO. > > 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. We don't use any validator, we just implemented all the rules we could one by one. See https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/blob/master/xwiki-platform-tools/xwiki-platform-tool-standards-validator/src/main/java/org/xwiki/validator/DutchWebGuidelinesValidator.java. If any good validator implemented in Java exist it would be much better indeed. > > 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 -- Thomas Mortagne
