> On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:52, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 20 Mar 2019, at 17:34, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> 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.
Actually we can even run HTML_CodeSniffer inside a functional UI test and using
Selenium’s ability to execute js, as shown here:
https://github.com/squizlabs/HTML_CodeSniffer/issues/227#issuecomment-418206829
Another, even better, option could to be develop an XWiki Extension to execute
HTML_CodeSniffer on a wiki page so that advanced xwiki users can make sure that
the wiki pages they develop are WCAG compatible. We would generate the report
somewhere in a given format.
Then, inside a functional UI test we would navigate to all wiki pages and
execute that XWiki Extension and then the test would check the generated report
and report errrors.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> 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) <vali...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
