W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Recommended FOSS CMS for accessibility?

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:53:20 -0600
To: Jennifer Sutton <jsuttondc@gmail.com>
Cc: hpan@net360.gr, Inessa Kulina <julija.ku@hotmail.com>, Luz Solano <luz.solano@mimgruppen.se>, mim-webbutveckling@googlegroups.com, Tord DellsÚn <tord.dellsen@gmail.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF25C93C8A.3A8DB454-ON86257F02.00716738-86257F02.0072C159@us.ibm.com>
I would recommend starting at the ATAG Overview page, not the technical 
spec (aka W3C ATAG 2.0 Recommendation) itself:
        http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/atag.php
The CMS, Droupal, etc. and other "manufactures, developers, vendors" may 
want to start with the technical spec itself, but unless you are a 
developer, ATAG 2.0 itself is not for you.
        ATAG is primarily for developers (not users) of authoring tools . 
. . 
        ATAG and supporting resources are also intended to meet the needs 
of many different audiences, including policy makers, managers, and 
others. For example:
People who want to choose authoring tools that are accessible and that 
produce accessible content can use ATAG to evaluate authoring tools.
People who want to encourage their existing authoring tool developer to 
improve accessibility in future versions can refer the authoring tool 
vendor to ATAG.

The ATAG Overview page leads the reader to the following page:
        Selecting and Using Authoring Tools for Web Accessibility
        http://www.w3.org/WAI/impl/software

which leads the reader to the following section
Product Reviews
The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) 
previously reviewed authoring tools for conformance with ATAG. As of the 
last revision of this document, the reviews were not up-to-date and 
therefore may not represent the latest progress in ATAG conformance. . .


        http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2002/tools
The page is dated 2002, 13 years old unfortunately, with 
        Wordpress, 
        Drupal 8,
        Joomla
are not even on the list.
____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins, 
Senior Engineer & Business Development Executive
IBM Accessibility
http://www.ibm.com/able
http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
http://twitter.com/IBMAccess
http://www.linkedin.com/in/philljenkins



From:   Jennifer Sutton <jsuttondc@gmail.com>
To:     Tord DellsÚn <tord.dellsen@gmail.com>, hpan@net360.gr
Cc:     w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, mim-webbutveckling@googlegroups.com, Luz Solano 
<luz.solano@mimgruppen.se>, Inessa Kulina <julija.ku@hotmail.com>
Date:   10/12/2015 12:20 PM
Subject:        Re: Recommended FOSS CMS for accessability?



Greetings, WAI-IG and all:

I will do my best to assure cross coverage, i.e. post the link to this 
discussion to the WebAIM list.

As it happens, there's a very similar thread just started on the WebAIM 
list that some here may find helpful:
Accessible CMS for writer AND reader? Contao? Wordpress? Ghost? Other? And 
opinions of Markdown for authoring?
http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread=7179

I would also suggest that being aware of ATAG 2.0 would be very much worth 
considering, as well as mentioning it to the supporters of the CMSs you're 
considering. Start here:

http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/

But as with most W3C guidelines with which I've worked, it may also be 
important to consider supporting documents related to the recommendation, 
itself.


Best,
Jennifer
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 20:54:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 November 2015 20:54:03 UTC