Accessibility and Content Management systems
Home / News & Resources / Accessibility and Content Management systems
This article on CMSWatch, although positively titled "Content management systems can improve accessibility" makes my blood boil.
There is so much accessibility benefit organisations can gain from a CMS approach, but even the CMS companies themselves seem unaware. The benefit of CMS are consistency and structure - those two characteristics create a great foundation for accessibility. But why or why go down the route of multiple websites - one for abled and one per disability groups???
I've written up a critique of this article, which follows on from my original article about the accessibility of text only websites.
Share: 
I think you are spot on with your critique. Just reading the first paragraph of the article flies in the face of all we understand about accessibility and useability. The author is missing the point and misleading webmasters. My reading of the DDA means that ALL websites belonging to an entity should be accessible therefore DO NOT PUBLISH MORE THAN 1 
Just from being a member of this site I have learnt a heck of a lot about these topics to the point where I am preparing to plunge headlong into site publishing (watch Site Critiques). If I had read this article first I think I would have blanched at the very thought.
_________________
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| The benefit of CMS are consistency and structure - those two characteristics create a great foundation for accessibility. But why or why go down the route of multiple websites - one for abled and one per disability groups??? |
<response class="short">
I agree with you...
</response>
<response class="long">
re: going the route of multiple web sites. Its marketing spin, and I don't blame him for that -- we all have to eat. In my opinion, his proposal to use multiple versions of web sites is a quick and dirty solution to eliminate the symptoms of inaccessibility without getting at the root cause -- poor design, and the poor knowledge of standards and accessibility of many developers (not all, but many).
A CMS means something different to everyone -- for some it may mean that they are able to publish with no knowledge of HTML or structure or design. For some it is an expert's tool that helps to manage work flow. Ultimately, we all know a CMS is just a tool -- and it is not the tool that matters so much as what you do with that tool that counts. Clearly flawed tools that don't produce clean, structured, markup are not a good thing. But even a tool that does produce clean, structured markup can fail in the hands of someone that doesn't "get it".
His article is filled with statements such as "in my opinion" and "I believe that", and then goes on to draw a conclusion from that stating "The clear upshot here is that different web sites are the way to go." Again, this provides him more leverage to be able to sell his Content Management Solutions. Again, he has to eat. So do we, and we write articles to further enhance our credibility with both current and prospective clients.
I'd suggest it is safe to say that the author really isn't up to speed on accessibility. He refers to IBM HomePageReader 3.0 as "the newest version of IBM ScreenReader 4 product. I'm guessing he hasn't really worked with any users of assistive technology, nor really understands the technology itself. As you pointed out in your article, he makes the assumption that a server can determine when a screen-reader or other assistive technology is in use.
I've always been a believer that creating a separate accessible version is the "last resort":
| Quote: |
| WCAG, Checkpoint 11.4
If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. |
To me, this is one of the most often abused Checkpoints, and most often misinterpreted. Many miss the two most important words in there: after best efforts.
Separate versions should be a technique considered an interim solution at best, to be implemented in the short term while the organization pursues other avenues to address their more fundamental problems with respect to structure, semantics, and just plain good design. If you have a CMS, you can create a separate version as an interim solution, and might be a decent first step, but is not a long term solution that complies with the "spirit" of accessibility.
</response>
Cheers,
feather.
_________________
Derek Featherstone
simplyaccessible.com | furtherAhead.com | BoxofChocolates.ca
Share:
You are spot-on with your critique, Isofarro!_________________
Stuff I do
******************************
Design: http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk
My book: http://www.transcendingcss.com/
Share:
May I suggest a correction to your otherwise excellent critique?
| Isofarro wrote: |
| How many ways are there to link on page to another. I count one - using an anchor link. |
The <link> tag showing next/previous and other relationships.
Added a few moments later:
I also question the promotion of Libertas as an Accessible CMS in that their homepage is table dependent, the list of links is not a list and some other issues I didn't delve too deep into. Perhaps their CMS product is good, hopefully it is better than their homepage.
_________________
Jules
Share:
| Jules wrote: | ||
The <link> tag showing next/previous and other relationships. |
Good point indeed!
| Jules wrote: |
| I also question the promotion of Libertas as an Accessible CMS |
I did it more out of desparation. I first spotted Libertas earlier last week - from the headlines they are generating, they seem far more promising than the "standard" CMS vendors. I think you are right about questioning it, it probably adds nothing to the point I'm making anyway. So I'll be removing it shortly.
Thanks.
Share:
There might be an accessible CMS through OpenSourceCMS.com._________________
Jules
Share:
| Isofarro wrote: |
| There is so much accessibility benefit organisations can gain from a CMS approach, but even the CMS companies themselves seem unaware. |
I think it is fair to say that most CMS companies are unaware of the benefits CMS can bring to accessibility if for no other reason that it is in our own self interest to do so. Certainly if we're missing something please contact me
| Isofarro wrote: |
| ...why go down the route of multiple websites - one for abled and one per disability groups??? |
A second site is an attractive option for CMS vendors because:
- Once you buy into the idea of two versions of a site, the easiest means of managing two different versions of a site is to invest in a CMS.[/list]
- feather's point is right that it is a potential quick fix to poor design
- Being able to provide a text only version of the site potentially gives a CMS provider an advantage from a cost perspective. Not only would a web designer quoting for the job have twice the work initially, but the cost of site updates would also be doubled. This is particularly important if the site is large or needs updates regularly. End result CMS = represents higher return on investment.
- Most requirements we are asked to quote on emphasise the importance of accessibility to the organisation yet frequently request multimedia elements such as flash, movies, audio etc. When we contact the person responsible they generally have little idea about the realities of accessibility may have heard of Bobby and usually consider a text only version a valid solution.
| feather wrote: |
| If you have a CMS, you can create a separate version as an interim solution, and might be a decent first step, but is not a long term solution that complies with the "spirit" of accessibility. |
I think this is a little harsh, by arguing that a separate version is only acceptable "as an interim solution" the fact that some people find it useful is being ignored or at the very least undervalued. I agree with Mikea that "ALL websites belonging to an entity should be accessible" but that to state "therefore DO NOT PUBLISH MORE THAN 1" is unreasonable. Some users find a separate site useful while others feel that they are ostracised from other users - the best solution is to try to accommodate both views, which we strive to do.
In our case we provide a "text only" feature on all sites powered by our CMS that can be viewed via an access key (usually "m") or text / image link (depending upon the customers preference). This is an automatic feature which is similar to Betsie in that it as generated from the normal page and is not intended as a substitute to accessibility. It costs us nothing extra to provide and as long as some people find it helpful we are glad to provide it as part of our standard feature set. A second text only site should not be considered as a universal panacea to all an organisations accessibility woes, but if it is provided as an option as well as having a site that takes heed of the WCAG recommendations. I'm not sure if our approach is the "perfect" way to address this, but would argue that it is practical and certainly "complies with the "spirit" of accessibility".
| Jules wrote: |
| I also question the promotion of Libertas as an Accessible CMS... in that their homepage is table dependent... |
I would like to state that our CMS is capable able to generate both table based (www.libertas-solutions.com) and non-table based designs (www.oyti.org).
The decision to stay with a table based design for our homepage for the time-being was heavily influenced by our existing customers and upon feedback we had with the National Library for the Blind after the 2004 Visionary Design Awards were:
www.philipmurphyassociates.com won the small commercial category (table based)
www.turkington-holdings.com was short listed for the small commercial category (table based)
www.uucfencing.co.uk was short listed for the voluntary sector category (table based)
www.oyti.org was short listed for the voluntary sector category (non-table based)
At the risk of spoiling someone’s fun, please don't see this as an invitation to declare open season on these sites or the National Library for the Blind (who I may not always agree with but have a lot of respect for). Within our customer base there is stronger support for using tables than 100% CSS, mainly due to levels of browser support currently available within browsers.
I think it might be a good idea if we were to set up a number of themes and enable site visitors to switch between them, to demonstrate both capabilities to visitors and hopefully please everyone. The functionality to do this is already in the product so its only a matter of finding the time
By the way anyone who is able to implement designs via CSS should send me examples of previous work & details of cost as we outsource this type of business when things are busy.
| Jules wrote: |
| I first spotted Libertas earlier last week - from the headlines they are generating, they seem far more promising than the "standard" CMS vendors. |
Short answer
Although not perfect, our CMS is considerably better than most on its accessibility feature set which we acknowledge still has room for improvement and we are committed to implementing.
Long answer
www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2570
Hopefully some of this post is useful / interesting to someone, doesn’t annoy anyone & in future I’ll keep posts shorter
Neil
_________________
Libertas Solutions CMS
Web content management made simple
www.libertas-solutions.com
Share:
| neilc wrote: |
| A second text only site should not be considered as a universal panacea to all an organisations accessibility woes, but if it is provided as an option as well as having a site that takes heed of the WCAG recommendations. |
ok, question: if the "normal" site already complies with all of WCAG, what does the text-only version do that the main site doesn't? would they not practically work exactly the same way? hence, what's the raison d'etre of the text-only version?
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure if our approach is the "perfect" way to address this, but would argue that it is practical and certainly "complies with the "spirit" of accessibility". |
the spirit mentioned is that of inclusive (as opposed to segregational) design. one site fits all. sure, offering the option to have text-only is nice, but again i'd question its actual need.
_________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
About two years ago a number of our clients asked us if it would be possible to provide a separate high contrast / text only version of their site and while we where at it if a printer friendly feature was also possible. As we are committed to enhancing as part of our support offering we built the feature.
From our perspective neither was an unreasonable request and they had the added benefit of using the same technology principles making it even easier to do. As an added benefit we where recently able to leverage the approach to provide a PDA friendly version as part of a tender we won for www.londonderrychamber.co.uk. Again this little enhancement has been made available to all customers.
Do these features benefit site visitors?
- the benefits of the printer friendly feature are obvious
- we based the colour scheme of our high contrast / text only feature on reseach and advice we where given related to dyslexia
- the pda version is simply a low bandwidth version of the site with a compact menu layout
Is there a point to these features from our perspective?
- happy customers = yes
- some people use them useful = yes
To a large extent it could be argued that it probably could have been possible to achieve most of these goals through inclusive design alone. I personally don't have a strong opinion either way, we take the diplomatic path on this one and offer both options so everyone is happy. Owners of non-CMS powered sites don't have this level of flexibility so if they where considering providing a separate "accessibly site" I would recommend they focus there resources on just maintaining one.
As I'm sitting here writing this a conversation I had with someone regarding the needs of people with learning difficulties comes to mind. Since its a discussion in its own right I've started a new thread on the topic www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=18590
In the interests of honesty we've not specifically included any functionality in our CMS that would address this need without a second site. Perhaps there's a potential suite of features that we could develop to address this.
I know our developers will probably start to cry on me if I sugguest there is
_________________
Libertas Solutions CMS
Web content management made simple
www.libertas-solutions.com
Share:
printer friendly, PDA friendly and high contrast versions can be achieved simply via alternate / media stylesheets...so these features are available in a very simple way even to non CMS users..._________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
| neilc wrote: | ||
I think this is a little harsh, by arguing that a separate version is only acceptable "as an interim solution" the fact that some people find it useful is being ignored or at the very least undervalued |
I don't think it is harsh at all, given the first part of the paragraph from which you quoted. Here is what I also wrote:
| feather wrote: |
| Separate versions should be a technique considered an interim solution at best, to be implemented in the short term while the organization pursues other avenues to address their more fundamental problems with respect to structure, semantics, and just plain good design. |
My critique, Neil, is not of you as a CMS vendor. It is of the organizations that see the CMS solution that can spin out mutliple versions easily as a solution and quick fix to their web accessibilty problems.
I always have, and will continue to argue that most accessibilty concerns should be addressed at a more fundamental level than simply providing a "text-only" version. Again -- I feel this because it seems that many organizations believe that once they "add the accessibility plug-in" (i.e., the text-only version of every page) that they have adequately addressed accessibility.
I'm not saying that there is *no* value to a text only version, just that it can't be seen as the panacea of making an organization's site accessible. I think we all agree on that.
We've analyzed many many many web "things" (pages, applications, products), and in our experience we've found that in many (but not all) cases the text-only counterpart of the web site was actually less accessible than the original. Note that these were sites where the text-only version was being generated dynamically and not a seperately maintained version.
| neilc wrote: |
| About two years ago a number of our clients asked us if it would be possible to provide a separate high contrast / text only version of their site and while we where at it if a printer friendly feature was also possible. |
Two years ago, I would have relied on the back end to create all of the above: a high-contrast, a text-only or a printable version. It would have *had* to be built in to the CMS. Your customers asked, you answered -- everyone is happy.
Fast forward to today... If you *didn't* already have these alternate version options in your CMS would you power it through the back end, or would you use well-designed stylesheets that provide *exactly* the same options?
And I guess that is what my point has always been -- if your main site is well designed and up to par, then your alternate versions become available through other means without having to be powered through the CMS.
Cheers,
feather.
_________________
Derek Featherstone
simplyaccessible.com | furtherAhead.com | BoxofChocolates.ca
Share:
Neil, thank you for your thoughtful reply, and for explaining the CMS vendors viewpoint. Let's tackle the FUD issues:
| neilc wrote: |
|
- Being able to provide a text only version of the site potentially gives a CMS provider an advantage from a cost perspective. Not only would a web designer quoting for the job have twice the work initially, but the cost of site updates would also be doubled. This is particularly important if the site is large or needs updates regularly. End result CMS = represents higher return on investment. |
CMS vendors here make the assumption that the content is accessible - otherwise how could just changing the template/layout be sufficient for proper accessibility?
With that assumption in mind, what do CMS vendors have in place to ensure that the content being edited is accessible?
| neilc wrote: |
|
- Most requirements we are asked to quote on emphasise the importance of accessibility to the organisation yet frequently request multimedia elements such as flash, movies, audio etc. When we contact the person responsible they generally have little idea about the realities of accessibility may have heard of Bobby and usually consider a text only version a valid solution. |
How does a CMS make "flash, movies, audio" accessible in the text-only version? I see two "approaches":
* Have the CMS user create a full text-only equivalent to the multimedia resource. Now they have to keep two separate resources in step. Without the CMS managing both the multimedia and text-only equivalent, it is very easy for the two to be out of step. Do any products actually force the content editor to update the text-only representation when the multimedia file is updated - and how is this checked for consistency?
* Have the text-only solution not deliver the multimedia. This is unacceptable as an accessible solution. The guidelines ask for equivalent content to replace inaccessible media - removing the content from the "text-only" version does not meet accessible guidelines, since the content is still inaccessible.
| neilc wrote: |
| I think this is a little harsh, by arguing that a separate version is only acceptable "as an interim solution" the fact that some people find it useful is being ignored or at the very least undervalued. |
* What is the difference between the inaccessible website, and its text-only equivalent? If it is nothing more than hiding inaccessible media and setting styles to sensible levels, then current browsers can already do that.
* I find it hard to believe that website owners asking for a text-only alternative are doing so because some people find it useful, yet manage to ignore the fact that their main website can be made equally, if not more, useful to both the "typical" visitor, and those who find this functionality useful.
* Am I right in believing that the main reason for the inaccessible website being promoted as the main site is because it is the one that "looks" designed (and otherwise being accessible would ruin the look)?
| neilc wrote: |
| Some users find a separate site useful while others feel that they are ostracised from other users - the best solution is to try to accommodate both views, which we strive to do. |
* What do these users find useful about text-only websites? Why can this benefit not be achieved on the main website?
| neilc wrote: |
| In our case we provide a "text only" feature on all sites powered by our CMS that can be viewed via an access key (usually "m") or text / image link (depending upon the customers preference). This is an automatic feature which is similar to Betsie in that it as generated from the normal page and is not intended as a substitute to accessibility. |
* How does your tool insert the equivalent content for an image (or a Flash movie)? Looking at Betsie, it merely hides inaccessible content, instead of making it accessible. This is not accessibility. What Betsie does is nothing above what a standard browser can do today.
| neilc wrote: |
| I'm not sure if our approach is the "perfect" way to address this, but would argue that it is practical and certainly "complies with the "spirit" of accessibility". |
The spirit of accessibility is one of inclusive society. There is no reason or basis for a separate website for people with disabilities - other than politics.
| neilc wrote: |
| Short answer
Although not perfect, our CMS is considerably better than most on its accessibility feature set which we acknowledge still has room for improvement and we are committed to implementing. |
I'd like to understand this functionality from a technical level - if possible.
Share:
| feather wrote: |
| My critique, Neil, is not of you as a CMS vendor. |
I we agree on most points
- adhering to WCAG recommendations as much as possible is essential
- a "plug in" is not an acceptable way to address accessibility in isolation
- there is a value in a text only version, how much is open to debate
| feather wrote: |
| ... in our experience we've found that in many (but not all) cases the text-only counterpart of the web site was actually less accessible than the original. |
At the risk of inviting trouble on our selves I would ask people to visit our site, check the "text only" version and contact me directly if they feel this is the with us.
| feather wrote: |
| If you *didn't* already have these alternate version options in your CMS would you power it through the back end, or would you use well-designed style sheets that provide *exactly* the same options? |
As I have already stated I accept that well-designed style sheets can address most of issues, but if we where to do it again today is this way we probably would:
- Table based designs: although frowned upon by the accessibility community it is a fact that some people expect their site to look almost identical in all browsers and therefore will not accept a totally CSS based design. In this case I believe that the text only feature remains of benefit. We can make recommendations to customers, but not dictate to them because at the end of the day it is them who pay the bills.
- PDA version: Although 100% css based designs do perform well on mobile devices, we received feedback from some of out larger customers that the display was not ideal due to the amount of space the menu occupied and that certain images (i.e. banners) required excessive bandwidth. If you get a chance please view www.londonderrychamber.co.uk on a PDA and you will see that the menu is now in a compact drop down format and the image banners have been replaced with a text version on the advert.
- Text only version: A practical justification for this approach is that buyers unfamiliar with accessibility ask for it even today and providing this feature helps us win business.
| feather wrote: |
| ...if your main site is well designed and up to par, then your alternate versions become available through other means without having to be powered through the CMS. |
I totally agree that you do not *need* a CMS for a site to be accessible. I'm sure that nearly everyone would agree that a CMS dose make achieving accessiblity easier, particularly with larger sites or ones that need to be regularly updated.
As I have said in www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2570 accessibility is an important consideration for us, it is not our primary business. In the past we have turned away business that we feel could not benefit from a CMS. If you have a small site thats rarely updated and all you are looking to do is to increase its accessiblity then in all honesty a CMS may not be the right way to go.
As Jeff Foxworthy (US commedian) once said that "..if all you want is a packet of peanuts, there are easiey ways of getting them than buying an airplane"
_________________
Libertas Solutions CMS
Web content management made simple
www.libertas-solutions.com
Share:
| neilc wrote: |
|
At the risk of inviting trouble on our selves I would ask people to visit our site, check the "text only" version and contact me directly if they feel this is the with us. |
Looking at: http://www.libertas-solutions.com/...
There's no difference between the text-only and the main version. Except in the main version you've handicapped yourself to using a tabled-layout, so the left-hand navigation appears first (Joe Clark points out a technique for correcting this problem in http://www.joeclark.org/... - which can be done without visually affecting the layout.
The text-only view is far more degraded in a text-browser than the main one. It also fails to provide a useful alternative equivalent for the image immediately before the current date. The navigation is a mess, rather than a tidy nested list. In Lynx, the text-only version is less accessible than the main version. There's references to "Access Keys to ...oard navigation" that don't look, or sound, right.
So, exactly what is the user finding useful about the text-only version - that they can't find useful on the main version?
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum