RE: Accessible content management system

Hi Terry

Thanks for your feedback. However, while I understand your skeptisism, I
take a slightly more pragmatic view regarding accessibility as perhaps can
be seen in other posts.

I totally understand and support the use of validators to give us an idea of
whether a site is likely to be particularly accessible or not and can be
very helpful to provide feedback to site authors, it does not follow that
any site that  does not validate or produces a mass of potential issues is
not usable. 

Indeed, the very fact that there are blind people successfully
administrating Drupal sites to me at least suggests that with the
appropriate knowledge and experience, it is usable.

I would also add that I am very aware that accessibility is not just about
blind people which I know can be a sensitive subject but hope that people
understand I merely use this as an example, and primarily because as someone
with a visual impairment, it is the one with which I personally am most
familiar. Just because a site may be usable by a blind person with a screen
reader does not mean it is usable by people from other disability groups or
minorities.

Cheers
Ian

 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Terry Dean
Sent: 04 August 2011 12:17
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 11:51:17 UTC