Comments on: Responsibility for accessible content http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/ Kything web interactions Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:29:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dennis http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/comment-page-1/#comment-20635 Dennis Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:03:16 +0000 http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/#comment-20635 Great article, AlastairC! I may add to the Web Axe podcast. And thanks for the blog spam, Phil L. The article you references has multiple false claims and is a blatant example of blog spam. Great article, AlastairC! I may add to the Web Axe podcast.

And thanks for the blog spam, Phil L. The article you references has multiple false claims and is a blatant example of blog spam.

]]> By: AlastairC http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/comment-page-1/#comment-19311 AlastairC Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:51:20 +0000 http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/#comment-19311 Hi Phil, Although I broadly agree that CMSs have many advantages over desktop software, that article is fairly biased and misleading. <ul> <li>It is only one CMS it is comparing, not the general aspects.</li> <li>It assumes the site is setup for the CMS, but not the software.</li> <li>Ignores the aspects where desktop software can be better, such as being an accessible interface.</li> <li>Many of the points are just wrong or irrelivent, such as <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universalwebservices.net%2Fcontent-management%2Four-content-management-system-vs-desktop-software" rel="nofollow">standards compliance</a>, speed and staging.</li> </ul> Hi Phil,

Although I broadly agree that CMSs have many advantages over desktop software, that article is fairly biased and misleading.

  • It is only one CMS it is comparing, not the general aspects.
  • It assumes the site is setup for the CMS, but not the software.
  • Ignores the aspects where desktop software can be better, such as being an accessible interface.
  • Many of the points are just wrong or irrelivent, such as standards compliance, speed and staging.
]]> By: Phil L. http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/comment-page-1/#comment-19309 Phil L. Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:26:08 +0000 http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/#comment-19309 <i>content management vs. desktop software</i> is a pretty good article detailing the advantages of content management over destktop software like DreamWeaver or Frontpage. [Edit: link removed - AlastairC] content management vs. desktop software is a pretty good article detailing the advantages of content management over destktop software like DreamWeaver or Frontpage.

[Edit: link removed - AlastairC]

]]> By: AlastairC http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/comment-page-1/#comment-19302 AlastairC Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:14:29 +0000 http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/#comment-19302 Good points Alun, I guess I was thinking mostly of putting the right things in place to make accessibility <em>possible</em>, but training, review and ongoing testing are definately worth adding. Good points Alun, I guess I was thinking mostly of putting the right things in place to make accessibility possible, but training, review and ongoing testing are definately worth adding.

]]> By: Alun David http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/comment-page-1/#comment-19301 Alun David Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:53:18 +0000 http://alastairc.ac/2007/07/responsibility-for-accessible-content/#comment-19301 Alastair, The only points I would add to that excellent article would that training of the authors in both how to write content for the Internet environment, which we both know is significantly different from writing for the printed page, and also train the authors in why they need to do things in a certain way to improve both the accessibility and usability of the content. I would also recommend using workflow in a CMS so that somebody else in the organisation can check not only for correctness / accuracy of content but also for how well it’s written and presented. The accuracy check needs to be by somebody that understands what’s being written about and the latter by possibly somebody with journalism training. Lastly, as you are aware, one of my favourite points is about accessibility not just being for launch day and it continuously needs to be checked and not by the developers etc as it’s very difficult to spot your own mistakes. In an ideal world get a 3rd party to audit the site regularly. Alastair, The only points I would add to that excellent article would that training of the authors in both how to write content for the Internet environment, which we both know is significantly different from writing for the printed page, and also train the authors in why they need to do things in a certain way to improve both the accessibility and usability of the content.

I would also recommend using workflow in a CMS so that somebody else in the organisation can check not only for correctness / accuracy of content but also for how well it’s written and presented. The accuracy check needs to be by somebody that understands what’s being written about and the latter by possibly somebody with journalism training.

Lastly, as you are aware, one of my favourite points is about accessibility not just being for launch day and it continuously needs to be checked and not by the developers etc as it’s very difficult to spot your own mistakes. In an ideal world get a 3rd party to audit the site regularly.

]]>