RE: Accessible content management system

Hi Jim

I totally agree with you on this and your other well made points,
particularly the idea that the 3rd party module/extension sector perhaps
should be approached as a sector.

However, and maybe this is more of a hope than anything else, but if the
leading CMS platforms produce accessible content and organisations are drawn
to a particular platform on this basis, then they will also be looking for
accessible extensions, which could actually lead to the development of more
accessible extensions directly. 

Furthermore, if you have a choice between a number of potential extensions,
and I'm thinking particularly of commercial products here, all of which do
more or less the same thing but one of which is accessible, authors who may
not necessarily be so concerned about accessibility but who are aware of the
issues, perhaps would be more likely to choose the accessible option to
avoid any potential risk. And before you know it, 3rd party vendors have to
ensure accessibility in order to be competitive Obviously it would be nice
to think they would choose the accessible option because that's the right
option to take, but slowly but surely, I am finding that organisations are
becoming more and more aware of the issues and many are keen to address
them.. The easier it is for them to do so, the better.

Cheers
Ian

 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Tobias
Sent: 04 August 2011 12:49
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Accessible content management system

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 13:28:12 UTC