E-mail List Archives

Re: Website Content Management System Recommendations forAccessibility?

for

From: Bo Nilsson
Date: Feb 22, 2014 3:12PM


Hi Tricia!

As a screen reader user I have done some testing for my own use regarding
the backend accessibility of a few CMS. My findings are:
- Drupal is the only one I should dare to use.
- Wordpress seems yet to be too hard .
- Frog, a little CMS with much use of php and html, seems to be rather
accessible.
- There are some more open source CMS said to be accessible, for instance
Joomla, but I have not tried any of them.
I have also looked at a few commercial alternatives, but all of them have
failed.

Should be interesting to hear of other findings. The backend of CMS is
really a problem!

/Bo Nilsson


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tricia Sutton" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:10 PM
Subject: [WebAIM] Website Content Management System Recommendations
forAccessibility?


> Hi,
>
> I am working on a project that includes evaluating technology and options
> for accessibility, including the client's website (and more than the
> website). Do you have any recommendations on content management systems
> (CMS) that improve accessibility for the blind and deaf-blind to use when
> building a new website? I do understand a lot of accessibility has to come
> from the web designers and developers following good practices related to
> alt text, layout, format and more. Aside from that though:
>
> * Do any specific CMS work better or help make sure the
> accessibility features are built in?
>
> * Are any CMS more accessible to use for staff members who have
> varying degrees of impairment (on the continuum from partial vision loss
> to fully blind and fully deaf-blind)?
>
> Thanks in advance for your ideas and input.
>
> > Tricia Sutton
> Note: The contents of this electronic communication, including
> attachments, are considered confidential information and should not be
> reproduced or shared with any outside parties without prior written
> permission of the sender.
>
> > >