just a quick answer, as I'm running out the door

1) xhtml is not the same as accessibility - whilst the site may validate to xhtml transitional, it can still fail all the major compliance standards (WCAG,ADA508 etc.).

2) we always have to be aware of the existing ecosystems of thousands (if not millions) of DNN sites. Changing the DTD declaration changes how browsers parse it. If we simply made that change in the core, during the next upgrade we could change people's sites look and feel . Whilst this could be minor, it would still be a breaking change. Instead what we'll do (probably) is support the ability to alter the DTD output, as well as detect if it's defined in a skin, and alter it automatically. This will allow updated/new skins to utilise it, but not hurt existing sites. Similar arguments apply to modules.

Cathal

Please excuse me for jumping in here, but I am searching for the Holy Grail of CMS (maye I should make that the DaVinci Code) that will produce valid and accessible code. I am a p/t web designer and consultant and work in the accessible web design field. I have worked through three CMSs (all built with LAMP in mind) and am now looking at DNN as an alternative (since I am running on a hosted Windows server...long story). So I am very interested in this conversation.

But let me comment. There have been several open discussions in accessible news groups about the topic of accessible CMSs and I have come to the conclusion that even the best can be made to produce invalid, non-accessible code if the user is not familiar with the concepts. BTW, this seems to be the general consensus of the field. So at this point I am concentrating my search on valid XHTML code and then worry about making sure I don't screw up the content.

I would also add that there are two parts to accessibility. The most obvious is the output web pages need to be accessible to Assistive Technologies (AT). And, second, the user interface needs to also be accessible. Not so much for me, but if I have users that will be logging in a loading content, that interface needs to be accessible. For example, this app that I am typing into right now, this should be fully accessible to a user with AT.

So my plan is to install DNN and set it up. I run it through its paces and we'll let you know what I figure out.

BTW, if there are others out there who have build sites with DNN and think they have achieved accessibility, I'd love to take a look at your site and hear about your experiences.

John Brandt

www.jebswebs.com

I know what you mean. There are government websites in UK as well that are still not compliant. But still, if there is a government legislation for DDA compliance then igonrance can not be an excuse. It would only take someone to take Court Action (like its already happening around the world) and suddenly priorities would be different.

Thanks for explaining the complexities in the subject. Its comforting to know that atleast there is development going on to solve the issue. However, has there been any thought in the Core Team to provide a fully functional text-only version of the site. I know thats not the best solution as W3C recommends that as last resort but atleast it is one until we have our fully accessibilty compliant and validated DNN portal.

I think DRUPAL does provide a text-only version but i'd be absolutely gutted to see a government organisation choose DRUPAL just because of compliance issues coz DNN is so much better in all other functionalities.