Comments on: Accessibility for content providers – headings http://www.redefine.co.uk/blog/2006/11/16/accessibility-for-content-providers-headings/ Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:33:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Nigel Dunn http://www.redefine.co.uk/blog/2006/11/16/accessibility-for-content-providers-headings/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Nigel Dunn Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:59:44 +0000 http://www.redefine.co.uk/blog/2006/11/16/accessibility-for-content-providers-headings/#comment-3 Yes there probably is some overselling of the capabilities of a CMS - whether it's a simple blogging package through to an enterprise-wide system. But I think in part it is also the need for content providers to come to terms with the shift from paper-based media into the digital world. It's part of the maturing Internet. When you see something in print it doesn't really matter how you've managed to achieve the styling, but with web content it does matter. And it's not just for accessibility reasons as the content could be reused in many different contexts (e.g. syndicated to other sites as a feed) and different media (e.g. converted to speech). So the underlying semantic structure of the content needs to be created so that other computer programs can 'understand' it better and make better use of it. The fact that the rich text editors are trying to resemble word processors encourages the user to think in a paper-based fashion. That's part of the current price of providing something more familiar, without which it would not be as widely adopted. I think it'll get easier over time. In many areas we're still trying to determine what are the different roles required to build and maintain a web presence, and what skills and knowledge those people should have. So in this area we're moving on from the thrill of shifting content creation out of the world of developers & designers and into the world of the writers. The rich text editors provided the mechanism for that to happen, but now they need to mature in their general functionality and web teams need to consider how they should be configured for specific websites. Yes there probably is some overselling of the capabilities of a CMS – whether it’s a simple blogging package through to an enterprise-wide system. But I think in part it is also the need for content providers to come to terms with the shift from paper-based media into the digital world. It’s part of the maturing Internet.

When you see something in print it doesn’t really matter how you’ve managed to achieve the styling, but with web content it does matter. And it’s not just for accessibility reasons as the content could be reused in many different contexts (e.g. syndicated to other sites as a feed) and different media (e.g. converted to speech). So the underlying semantic structure of the content needs to be created so that other computer programs can ‘understand’ it better and make better use of it.

The fact that the rich text editors are trying to resemble word processors encourages the user to think in a paper-based fashion. That’s part of the current price of providing something more familiar, without which it would not be as widely adopted.

I think it’ll get easier over time. In many areas we’re still trying to determine what are the different roles required to build and maintain a web presence, and what skills and knowledge those people should have.

So in this area we’re moving on from the thrill of shifting content creation out of the world of developers & designers and into the world of the writers. The rich text editors provided the mechanism for that to happen, but now they need to mature in their general functionality and web teams need to consider how they should be configured for specific websites.

]]> By: Steve Bridger http://www.redefine.co.uk/blog/2006/11/16/accessibility-for-content-providers-headings/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Steve Bridger Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:06:24 +0000 http://www.redefine.co.uk/blog/2006/11/16/accessibility-for-content-providers-headings/#comment-2 Thanks for this series, Nigel. One sentence stood out for me: "You and other content providers need to have the tools available to maintain the accessibility of your site." This is hard to swallow, but a fact of web editor life circa 2006. Ten years ago I got my "hands dirty" coding up web pages by hand (as you well know). Then along came the Content Mangagement System, which (in theory) permitted me and others to concentrate on creating the content - the stuff of value ;-) The implication was - and I think this is how they are still sold - that the CMS would do the job of spewing out the appropriate (accessible) code. Now it seems the wheels have turned back a notch or two. A web editor ought to understand some of this stuff. That's where you come in :) Thanks for this series, Nigel.

One sentence stood out for me: “You and other content providers need to have the tools available to maintain the accessibility of your site.”

This is hard to swallow, but a fact of web editor life circa 2006. Ten years ago I got my “hands dirty” coding up web pages by hand (as you well know). Then along came the Content Mangagement System, which (in theory) permitted me and others to concentrate on creating the content – the stuff of value ;-)

The implication was – and I think this is how they are still sold – that the CMS would do the job of spewing out the appropriate (accessible) code.

Now it seems the wheels have turned back a notch or two. A web editor ought to understand some of this stuff.

That’s where you come in :)

]]>