On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. Excluding hidden page for now is indeed something that would make a lot of sense. > > 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 > -- Thomas Mortagne
