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

RE: Accessible content management system

From: Jim Tobias <tobias@inclusive.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 07:49:09 -0400
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017f01cc529c$863c0d00$92b42700$@inclusive.com>
I see what you mean, Terry, but all but 2 of the Known Problems are due to
bad color contrast, which can be remedied quickly and globally by using
another theme, of which there are. Of course, I'd agree that drupal.org
should not be using such an unfriendly theme on its own site, but that
doesn't really take away from the ability of even a moderately motivated
developer to create a more accessible site.

Although it's great to use platforms that have maximal support for
accessibility, and even platforms where accessibility is a primary feature,
in the long run, it may be more practical to go after the most popular and
well-supported platforms that show some receptivity to accessibility. This
is especially true in the open source world, where accessibility enthusiasts
can have a lot of impact. The reasons for being a little skeptical of
accessibility-oriented platforms that have small user bases are that, first,
they may not survive long, and second, they may lack other,
non-accessibility, functionality or features that the site's users need.

It'd be great to live in a world where we could obsess endlessly about finer
and finer accessibility points (and I'm not saying Terry or anyone else is
doing that), but a perfect model railroad in my basement doesn't get an
actual commuter anywhere, right?

I'm also not saying that Drupal or any other CMS is 'accessible enough', so
we should shut up and use it. I'm only saying that the user/developer
communities of the most popular CMSs are rich in talent and receptive to our
message; a good mix of lobbying and development may carry the day.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.908.907.2387 v/sms
skype jimtobias

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Terry Dean
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:17 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Accessible content management system
> 
> 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 11:49:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 August 2011 11:49:38 GMT