> On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <[email protected]> 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 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).
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.
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
>> [email protected]
>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
