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

RE: Accessible content management system

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:31:30 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB0365BCC3@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Hi all,

As an editor on ATAG 2.0, I've been reading these posts with interest.

Unfortunately, the page mentioned in the last post (http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/software.html) was last updated in 2002!

A better (but still very much draft) resource is:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/implementation_report_10june2011.html

As Shawn pointed out in her post, ATAG 2.0 is in a public comment period at the moment. In addition to comments on the draft, we are actively seeking implementation examples for the implementation report. Examples from the CMS domain would be great!

Thanks,
Jan

-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://idrc.ocad.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Terry Dean
> Sent: August 5, 2011 9:12 AM
> To: Ian Sharpe; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Accessible content management system
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> I'm afraid this where we disagree. I think web standards are very
> important
> and conformance to those standards should be an ideal that we as
> developers
> should all be striving towards. Tools are just a useful way for
> developers
> (who are vaguely interested) to see whether a site meets those minimum
> standards.
> 
> After ten years of web development, I am disappointed to see on the WAI
> site
> that there still is not a single authoring tool that fully supports the
> production of accessible Web sites. Reference:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/software.html
> 
> The average internet user is most unlikely to ever use a validation
> tool so
> they have to trust that anyone claiming to adhere to accessibility
> standards
> are in fact implementing those standards. Why bother waving the
> "accessibility" flag, if you choose to ignore standards?
> 
> Anyway thank you for an interesting view point on accessibility.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Terry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Sharpe" <isforums@manx.net>
> To: "'Terry Dean'" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Accessible content management system
> 
> 
> > Hi Terry
> >
> > As mentioned previously, I personally do not view accessibility
> solely in
> > terms of conformance. And at the risk of being branded a heretic, I
> > personally would also like to see this view more widely accepted..
> >
> > I personally feel that now too much emphasis is being placed on
> > conformance
> > alone and the use of automated tools to validate whether a site
> conforms
> > to
> > relevant guidelines in order to meet any legal obligation rather than
> to
> > necessarily improve the "accessibility" of a site,  online service or
> web
> > application.
> >
> > I would like to see authors taking a step back to look at how they
> can
> > ensure their site or application is as usable as possible for their
> target
> > user group and use the various guidelines, techniques and strategies
> > promoted by this community to meet this objective and ensure that it
> is
> > accessible.
> >
> > Running validators against any site or service is all well and good
> and
> > certainly will help authors to identify potential areas of concern.
> > However,
> > automated tools will never be able to tell you whether the site is
> > actually
> > usable for all the members of a site's target audience.
> >
> > I was directed to another W3C document on strategies for testing
> > accessibility when I raised this point in a recent thread. This
> > recommended
> > authors / developers engage users with a range of disabilities early
> on in
> > the development of a site or online service and work with them to
> identify
> > potential problems which goes a long way to address my particular
> > concerns.
> >
> > However, I personally don't feel enough emphasis is placed on this
> > approach
> > and feel that it would be very helpful if organisations used the
> > accessibility statement on their site to clearly explain what they
> have
> > done
> > in order to address accessibility, particularly in terms of user
> testing,
> > the combinations of UA, AT, platform and device used to test the
> site, the
> > combination that resulted in the most effective results and how to
> address
> > any known outstanding problems.
> >
> > I believe this would have many benefits, not only to potential users
> by
> > managing their expectations and providing useful information on how
> to
> > actually use the site with AT, the best browser to use etc, but also
> to
> > the
> > organisations who I feel would gain credibility for the efforts they
> have
> > made and feel it would also go a long way to addressing a very
> commonly
> > held
> > perception that organisations just don't care and are only really
> playing
> > lip service to accessibility
> >
> > I know not all users will have access to the various combinations of
> > technology that a site may have used to test their site but if we
> > recommended a minimum requirement of using open source AT and most
> popular
> > platforms, most users would be able to decide whether they spent the
> time
> > installing any additional products in order to use the site if their
> > normal
> > configuration didn't work. I think just being told how to address any
> > issues
> > in order to use the site, or what kind of experience a user should
> expect
> > in
> > itself would help to reduce the frustration a lot of users feel,
> myself
> > included.
> >
> > If this formed part of the recommendations for compliance with A, AA,
> or
> > AAA
> > conformance I feel this would make a significant step in improving
> web
> > accessibility.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Ian
> 
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 13:31:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 August 2011 13:31:52 GMT