Johan Steenkamp wrote:
Agree with Vlad - far better to do things correctly in th first place.
Regards
Johan
http://www.assetnow.com
I agree with this approach too.
Also, from a usability point of view, for the average user wanting to add content to their system, a WYSIWYG editor is the only way to go. I know we are trying to use web forms in ways to allow users to markup <b>, etc, but why are we asking users to markup the text within textareas? This approach is better than none at all, but to move forward, the only way I think users will be really comfortable with web CMS is WYSIWYG that hook right into the sites DTD and CSS.
But there is a fundamental problem with ATAG. ATAG rightly requires WCAG P1 compliance, it has to on principle. But it is actually quite unreasonable to ask this of web based front ends that operate as Web Authoring Tools because none of them can function properly if scripting is turned off. This becomes a real problem if you ever have a contract to provide a CMS that complies with ATAG, because technically you can't do it. So you are signing a contract that you can never technically deliver on. And don't believe that no one will unreasonably take you to task on this, because I've seen departments go through projects with a fine tooth comb trying to find any sort of technicality to be able to find grounds to attack the contractor.
The ATAG working group have trouble acknowledging this, because the only way around this is that there actually needs to be a separate category other than WCAG that ATAG can comply with, which specifically targets Web Applications rather than Web Content. There should be WAAG (Web Application Accessibility Guidelines) for web applications.
Geoff ********************************************************* The CMS discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *********************************************************
