- From: Terry Dean <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:41:59 +0930
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Ian, A website built with nested tables is usable too but I thought this discussion was about accessible CMS's? What CMS would you suggest conforms to the W3C's "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? And at what level of conformance? regards, Terry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Sharpe" <isforums@manx.net> To: "'Terry Dean'" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:20 PM Subject: 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
Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 06:12:40 UTC