xhtml - CSS valid pages and WAI level AAA compliant

[huels]

I hope that new version of mambo will be compliant to the WAI AAA level of accessibility and that the pages (at least the majority) will be xhtml 1.0 and CSS valid....

[stingrey]

The aim for 4.5.1 is for it to validate as XHTML 1.0 Transitional compliant. In fact RC2 is able to achieve this for most pages, its only a few more component pages that need to be cleaned.


Re WAI AAA accessibility, this is being left for a later version - roadmap to be released after 4.5.1 stable will outline when.
This is because far larger changes to layout and content control are required.

[vavroom1]

I've been one to push for greater accessibility since I got involved with Mambo. Granted, I've only been 'round for 7 or so months :)

That said, I must give credit where it's due, and will gladly say that the Core Team has been seriously looking into W3C WAI compliance.

As a person with a disability, and a staunch disability rights activist, I will always push for more access rather than less. But we have to be reasonable. The good folks are doing what they can as fast as they can, and they are listening.

"It's coming!"

WAI AAA is a really high bar that is not so easy to reach in many cases. But you probably can "hit" a lot of the checkpoints in A, AA, and AAA also. And there are a lot of WAI checks that in the end will depend on the template used and colour scheme and components, etc.

I'm always interested to know, however, which guideline non-compliance is the most problematic for you? One of my issues is the "read more" links. Should have a way to make each link appear different than other links on a page.

Cheers

[hawkmultimedia]

Not to mention how this will open up Mambo to more use in gov't and educational applications that "must" comply with WIA standards. I'll be anxious to see this come about as well.

[vavroom1]

Not to mention how this will open up Mambo to more use in gov't and educational applications that "must" comply with WIA standards.

Hmmm. Actually, no. That statement is somewhat erroneous. US Federal government entities, and educational entities receiving federal funding (as well as some other groups receiving primarly federal funds), must comply with Section 508 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. While the guidelines are somewhat similar between 508 and WAI, WAI AA and AAA are much more stringent than 508's requirements.

Also, there are many more countries than just the US, and some of them have adopted their own electronic access laws & regulations. I haven't been following closely what's happening 'round the world, it may be that some of those regs actually refer to WAI, but I suspect they don't (please prove me wrong :) )

That said, chances are, if your site complies with all levels of WAI, you won't have an issue complying with 508. Which does mean that more govt' and US university would be able to use Mambo.

[absalom]

And yet people don't recognise that it doesn't take too much work to achieve 508 compliance with Mambo. I've been running W3C valid XHTML 1.0 and CSS for a while now, and I've pulled off 508 compliance as well with a near default build of Mambo 4.5 Stable 1.0.9

Full WCAG compliance, however, is going to take some work, as tabling and lack of accesskeys within the DB generation of content and menus/links are the two main killers for achieving WCAG Priority 2.

[vavroom1]

Yep, 508 is not *that* difficult to achieve.

WAI AA is, as we've said, trickier. On top of tables and accesskeys mentionned by Absalom, and the "read more" (goes against the clear identification of each link's target), I can think of a few more things... A big one is the use of headers (1 through 7) to convey structure in pages.

As I said, I believe all these issues are being worked on by the core team :)

[absalom]

Well, tabling and accesskeys I do believe are the only things stopping my site being compliant with WCAG Priority 2 (WAI AA).

At least that's what Cynthia tells me..

[vavroom1]

Well, tabling and accesskeys I do believe are the only things stopping my site being compliant with WCAG Priority 2 (WAI AA).

At least that's what Cynthia tells me..
Don't believe everything Cynthia says <grin> Or Bobby for that matter. Thing is, too many factor come into play and an engine, no matter how good, can miss things. That said, it's very possible you don't have the problems I mentionned on your site.

Are you talking about the Absalom Media site? If so you don't have one of the issues I discuss, unlike so many people. A majority of people when putting items on the front page will keep the "read more" link to view more about the article (http://communityservices.biz is a good example). This is a trigger to fail on AA

ANother trigger is the use of headers to create structure to each page. That site doesn't seem to have that, and a quick check with Cynthia says "Not applicable", which I'm not sure why, as structure is applicable for every page.

I'm not picking on you or being negative, on the contrary, I think it's most excellent you *are* interested in making your site more accessible. :O But in the 7 years I've been involved in consultancy with web acceessibility issues, I have encountered many situations where all the information was not available to the well meaning designers. Feel free to drop me a PM or an email if you want to discuss this more.

Cheers

[vavroom1]

Don't believe everything Cynthia says <grin> Or Bobby for that matter. Thing is, too many factor come into play and an engine, no matter how good, can miss things. I've seen it happen both ways, actually. Cases where it failed a page that actually was accessible, or passed pages that weren't.

That said, it's very possible you don't have the problems I mentionned on your site.

Are you talking about the Absalom Media site? If so you don't have one of the issues I discuss, unlike so many people. A majority of people when putting items on the front page will keep the "read more" link to view more about the article (http://communityservices.biz is a good example). This is a trigger to fail on AA

ANother trigger is the use of headers to create structure to each page. That site doesn't seem to have that, and a quick check with Cynthia says "Not applicable", which I'm not sure why, as structure is applicable for every page. There were a couple fails on Cynthia as well.

I'm not picking on you or being negative, on the contrary, I think it's most excellent you *are* interested in making your site more accessible. :O But in the 7 years I've been involved in consultancy with web acceessibility issues, I have encountered many situations where all the information was not available to the well meaning designers. Feel free to drop me a PM or an email if you want to discuss this more.

Cheers[/QUOTE]