On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah <adel.atal...@xwiki.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <simon.u...@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 > 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. > 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) 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.u...@xwiki.com > > >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com > > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne >
