[WCAG] Reference validator

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[WCAG] Reference validator

Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [WCAG] Reference validator

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:28 PM Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)
<[hidden email]> 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.

Our validator is indeed very old. If we could find some Java W3C WCAG
validator to replace ours that would be great IMO.

>
> 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.

We don't use any validator, we just implemented all the rules we could
one by one. See
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/blob/master/xwiki-platform-tools/xwiki-platform-tool-standards-validator/src/main/java/org/xwiki/validator/DutchWebGuidelinesValidator.java.

If any good validator implemented in Java exist it would be much better indeed.

>
> 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



--
Thomas Mortagne