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

Re: Accessible content management system

From: Terry Dean <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:47:02 +0930
Message-ID: <11C1E91AB877494189F7D52F2E7C0AB7@OfficePC>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Ian,

Yes I've read some of the commitment statements on Drupal and it all sounds 
good but one only has to run it through just one of the major accessibility 
tools available to find that their pages return 136 errors. Their html 
doesnt validate either. Would you call that a serious commitment? You can 
see why I'm cynical. Expressing commitment is not quite the same as 
delivering.

Contao.org has one validation error but that raises a new question for me. 
Is <!DOCTYPE html> a valid document type definition? I'm afraid I'm not up 
with the latest W3C developments. Could someone please elaborate?

http://www.dotnetnuke.com/ throws up 10 validation Errors , 2 warning(s) on 
their homepage which is one hell of an improvement since I last used it. At 
least they have moved on from multiple nested tables in 2000 but I see they 
are still non-compliant with XHTML 1.0 Transitional!

If I run Drupal, Contao.org and Dotnetnuke throught the first tool available 
from the WAI page http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/complete

What do we get using A-Checker? http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/

1. http://drupal.org/
Accessibility Review (Guidelines: WCAG 2.0 (Level AA))
    * Known Problems(136)
    * Likely Problems (0)
    * Potential Problems (432)

So, what do I think about these examples of accessible CMS platforms? Not 
much really. Thank god I dont have to use them.

Terry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "flybynight" <isforums@manx.net>
To: "'Terry Dean'" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: RE: Accessible content management system


> Hi Terry
>
> So far, the Drupal community clearly seems to have expressed a commitment 
> to
> ensure Drupal is accessible, both in terms of generated content and admin.
> As does Plone which also looks very good.
>
> 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
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 11:17:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 August 2011 11:17:50 GMT