> On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:34, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Caty and all,
>
> Thanks for this investigation. I’ve checked the links you gave and checked
> out a lot of them.
>
> The best one I’ve seen and the best candidate I've found is
> http://squizlabs.github.io/HTML_CodeSniffer/
>
> It's under a BSD license, maintained, and working well from the tests I've
> done on myxwiki.org and xwiki.org.
>
> It's in JS (normal and BTW our current WCAG validator is missing checks
> because of that) and can be run standalone on the command line with a
> headless browser (PhantomJS for ex).
Actually PhantomJS is oldish and the simplest is probably to provide a Docker
image in which we have Chrome Headless set up for ex.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> See https://github.com/squizlabs/HTML_CodeSniffer
>
> Note that it’s also the tool used by CKEditor’s Accessibility Checker AFAIK.
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> On 3 Oct 2018, at 16:27, 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>
