- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 05:54:51 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Chris Croome <chris@webarchitects.co.uk>
- cc: wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi, historically they have been very hard to come by. In the last couple of years I have noticed that many of these systems have been working on it quite hard, resulting in real improvement. On one hand systems such as mkdoc and ziteedit, being web-based, have become more accessible and will continue to improve as browsers do, as well as with improvements to their own interfaces. Similarly, many products have now been given a web-based interface, although the accessibility of those has sometimes left a lot to be desired. But there is more to the accessibility of a system than its interface - not just the ability to add a longdesc or sevral, but also making it easy and natural for content authors to ensure that documents being produced will have useful structure. Where necessary, of course, this requires appropriate help documentation. All these requirements are detailed in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidlelines - http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10 - a W3C recommendation since february 2000. cheers chaals On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Chris Croome wrote: Hi On Thu 27-Jun-2002 at 08:46:27AM +0100, Andrew McFarland wrote: > > Are accessible content management systems hard to come by? I suspect they are, and while it might not be too much work making the CMS produce accessible HTML for the public doing the same for the editor interface and in addition having to comply with ATAG means that it's not a trivial task. I guess one acid test is -- can you edit the site using Lynx or do you need IE5.x or newer? Chris -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 05:54:53 UTC