W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2011

RE: Accessible content management system

From: Ian Sharpe <isforums@manx.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 10:37:05 +0100
To: "'Phil Evans'" <pae9@star.le.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Terry Dean'" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFFE53D16B194C5296D100A75B093B01@sharpyPC>
Hi Phil

Totally agree and would also re-emphasise the point that jim made in
relation to this point as well as module or extension development. No matter
how well designed and conformant a CMS might be, it is always going to be
the case that the author of any given site must also consider the theme  and
any modules or extensions it uses in order to ensure a site is accessible. 

The point I was making with regard to Plone, (and Drupal), is more that both
of these communities has expressed a strong desire or even commitment to
improve the accessiblity of their platforms which is encouraging. As it is
also encouraging to hear that blind people are successfully administrating
sites using Drupal or Contao for example.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Phil Evans
Sent: 04 August 2011 07:52
To: flybynight
Cc: 'Terry Dean'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Accessible content management system

Hi all,

Just a very small contribution, as I don't use CMS at all:

> As does Plone which also looks very good.

Is this true? I have not used Plone from the developer point of view, but a
website which I visit regularly uses Plone. If I feed pages frmo that
website to the W3C HTML validator they fail -- only a couple of relatively
minor errors, but nonetheless I (naively?) would hope that a CMS which
aspires to serve accessible content will at least provide valid content.

As a side issue, which you're probably all aware of, no CMS could ever
guarantee accessibilty on its own. For example, a (plone-based) site I have
used chose red on green as its colour scheme; ignoring that fact that
red/green colour-blindness (very common) would render the page unusable!


> Typo3 would seem to be quite usable apparently although I haven't 
> spent any time looking into this at this stage.
> However, you may well want to take a look at contao: 
> http://www.contao.org
> Which looks very good from my initial view.
> I haven't validated it yet but it seemed very usable with only the 
> keyboard and has a nice clean and simple interface, while still having 
> all the features you'd expect to see in a leading CMS. It even has a 
> load of shortcut keys that are described in the main admin screen. You 
> can try the online demo from their home page.
> I'd be interested to hear what you and others think?
> Incidentally, have you looked at DNN recently? I'm guessing it hasn't 
> got any better but I do know they were keen on conformance with W3C 
> guidelines, although which ones I'm not exactly sure.
> Cheers
> Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Terry Dean
> Sent: 03 August 2011 21:14
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Accessible content management system
> Hi Ian,
> If you do find one that conforms to the W3C Web Accessibility 
> guidelines please let me know. Its one thing to claim that a CMS is 
> compliant and another to actually be accessible.
> You only need to run a few accessibility tools over these CMSs to find 
> that they are generally full of problems.
> I dont claim to have the answers and I do not build these systems but 
> I can understand how difficult they must be to make compliant. I 
> remember trying to modify DotNetNuke in 2000 in order to validate it 
> to XHTML Strict 1.0 and gave up in the end.
> regards,
> Terry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Sharpe"<isforums@manx.net>
> To: "'Terry Dean'"<Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>;<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Accessible content management system
>> Hi Terry
>> While I understand where you're coming from and based on the feedback 
>> I've received so far, would accept your belief that at this time, 
>> such a solution does not exist, I would challenge your statement that 
>> this is not a serious question.
>> Much of the web these days is generated through CMSs and this is only 
>> going to increase over time. One of the founding principals of the 
>> web for me at least is giving everyone the opportunity to have their 
>> say and hear what everyone else is saying. It follows that if members 
>> of the disabled or less technically competant communities are unable 
>> to voice their opinions and thoughts as easily as those without any 
>> barriers to access and author content (particularly when it's in 
>> relation to accessing and authoring content), this voice will become 
>> quieter when it should be getting louder.
>> Ensuring that there is at least one accessible and feature rich CMS 
>> would therefore seem vital in terms of the web's accessibility to me.
>> It is therefore a very serious question and while there doesn't 
>> appear to currently be a single solution, I hope that you are at 
>> least encouraged, even if only a little, by the comments others have
>> Cheers
>> ian


Phil Evans,
Swift Development Scientist
X-ray and Observational Astronomy Group, University of Leicester

Tel: +44 (0)116 252 5059
Mobile: +44 (0)7780 980240

Follow me as a Swift scientist on Twitter: @swift_phil
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 09:38:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:42 UTC