RE: Recommended FOSS CMS for accessibility?

Hi Phill and Jennifer,

Thanks for the shout-out to ATAG 2.0, which recently became a full W3C recommendation.

I encourage anyone who is procuring web authoring software to include a reference to ATAG in your requirements, etc.

re: CMS tools, a tool called Defacto CMS (not FOSS) was reviewed as part of the Candidate Recommendation process and did quite well (Note: some other tools were also reviewed, but if we could not get permission to publish a tool's name then it appears as a number). Here is the CR implementation report:



T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844

From: Phill Jenkins []
Sent: November-19-15 3:53 PM
To: Jennifer Sutton
Cc:; Inessa Kulina; Luz Solano;; Tord DellsÚn;
Subject: Re: Recommended FOSS CMS for accessibility?

I would recommend starting at the ATAG Overview page, not the technical spec (aka W3C ATAG 2.0 Recommendation) itself:
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

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. . .

The page is dated 2002, 13 years old unfortunately, with
        Drupal 8,
are not even on the list.
Phill Jenkins,
Senior Engineer & Business Development Executive
IBM Accessibility

From:        Jennifer Sutton <>
To:        Tord DellsÚn <>,
Cc:,, Luz Solano <>, Inessa Kulina <>
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?<>

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:

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.


Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 21:24:35 UTC