HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

WCAG2 accessibility also in open source version?

AnkeAnke New
edited September 2016 in Feedback

Hi all,
We are developing a forum that will have to meet the Accessibility standards, in short the WCAG2 AA ones. On the vanilla docs we read that the forum is WCAG2 compliant, but looking into our open source installed version, I am kind of doubting that.

  • Is the extra-added accessibility restricted to the hosted version?
  • We are using the default theme; By reading the docs I expected that to be accessible. Did I understand wrong?
  • Anyone else had experience with a WCAG2 accessible forum, and can point us in the right direction?

We do have a lot of experience of building accessible sites from scratch, so we can always add more accessibility ourselves, but we hoped that a lot would already be implemented, considering the docs.

Thank you for your time!

(using version 2.2.1)



  • Options
    AnkeAnke New
    edited October 2016

    Bumping this one..
    Really, can no one say at least a little thing on this subject? :)
    Or, Admins, If this would be more at home in another category, please feel free to move the discussion.

    It would really be appreciated if anyone could share some insights. Thank you!

  • Options
    R_JR_J Ex-Fanboy Munich Admin

    In the docs you've linked to, there is the sentence "If you find an area where Vanilla could improve its accessibility, please contact support or file an issue."
    The only version for that you could file an issue is the open source version and that's why I think they refer to (not only) the default theme.

    This forum here is a good place for asking questions, but if want to report errors or suggest improvements, you better should use GitHub. This forum is powered mainly by Vanilla users while the Vanilla developers don't look at every discussion here, but they do not miss any action on the GitHub repository.

    By the way: I'm pretty sure I've read a comment some time ago from one of the developers that there have a huge interested in improving accessibility features, so rest asure that you are not ignored but only have chosen the wrong place to talk about your concerns.

  • Options
    hgtonighthgtonight ∞ · New MVP

    You could try using the trial version of the hosted product and see if the accessibility has already been improved there.

    My gut says they wouldn't leave accessibility out of the OS version.

    Search first

    Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.

    Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.

  • Options
    LincLinc Detroit Admin

    Any difference is attributable only to 2.2.1 being that far behind master branch. 2.3 is better; 2.4 will be better still. I'd love to see issues filed where we're falling short.

  • Options
    AnkeAnke New
    edited October 2016

    Thanks for all your replies. Working with the hosted version, instead of the OS version is unfortunately not an option for us, since the client (government related) is demanding open source.

    I was kinda reluctant with filing issues for improving accessibility, since the already claimed to be WCAG compliant, but I saw some real obvious things that weren't. That gave me more of an impression that I was looking at a different product / version, and not some small things that were left out. :)

    But will look further into that, and the other versions as well, to see what is improved already!

Sign In or Register to comment.