On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/24/2009 10:24 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have a few issues in the WCAG tests for our wiki edit mode >> (results are in >> http://www.webrichtlijnen.nl/english/test/report/76745/182681/) >> : >> >> 1) "Use friendly URL's, that are readable and recognisable.". I >> believe this is caused by js present in javascript.vm which generate >> URLs like: >> var surl = "http://localhost:8080/xwiki/bin/cancel/Main/WebHome?ajax=1";; >> This is probably a pb with the WCAG test parser. However shouldn't we >> move the script in a JS file (maybe in xwiki.js)? >> If we don't move it then another rule that says that script element >> but have a noscript element specified will be triggered too. > > Yes, the canceledit and cancelcanceledit logic would need to be > revisited. I don't like it either, it's been bloating the source for too > long. > >> 2) "When using client-side script in combination with a link: if the >> link does not lead to anything, do not confront the visitor without >> support for client-side script with a non-working link." >> "Contains links which will not work if javascript is unavailable or >> switched off." >> Not sure what we should do with this one. Any idea? > > I think that's the deprecated tagedit in the Document Information panel. > It has a button that is actually hidden, so it should be safe to remove it. >
This button is legacy, IIRC I added to be able to reuse the template from the doc footer when tag editing was available in the information tab. I think it's safe to remove it. >> 3) "Use the th (table header) to describe a column or row in a table >> with relational information." >> The pb is in the Information Panel. >> <table summary="List of included documents" >> id="xwikiincludeddocuments"> <tbody> <tr><td><a href="/xwiki/bin/view/ >> Main/Dashboard">Main.Dashboard</a></td> <td class="xwikibuttonlink"><a >> href="/xwiki/bin/edit/Main/Dashboard">Edit</a></td></tr> </tbody> </ >> table> >> We need to decide if we consider it's valid or not. If the table is >> not a data table then it could be valid, as mentioned here: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#tables-layout >> I have tried to find alternatives (like not using a table, adding >> headers) but none looks good to me. Should we consider our code is ok? > > How about a plain list? The edit text could be replaced with a pencil > icon via CSS, and a simple [edit] text right after the document name > without style. > +1. JV. _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
