Irony in the cms industry

06 December 2007 by Niels Hartvig

This is almost sort of funny.

UPDATE: The issue has been resolved - kudos to Immediacy for having attention on this.

11 comment(s) for “Irony in the cms industry”

  1. Douglas Robar Says:
    07 December 2007I especially enjoyed the text on the page:

    "Immediacy removes this 'external' approach to maintaining a compliant site with the unique in-line accessibility checker. ...Only ever publishing compliant content..."

    Too bad the site isn't actually compliant. :o)
  2. Christian Foged Says:
    07 December 2007He he he he... Good one.
  3. Peter Says:
    07 December 2007http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fumbraco.org%2Fblog&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhartvig.com%2F2658.aspx&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

    Compliant sites isn't equal to validation. Compliancy is a lot more - and only minor about validation.

    May I suggest, you read:
    http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/06/march-to-your-own-standard
  4. Hartvig Says:
    08 December 2007@Peter: I knew it would come ;-) My point wasn't about whether a page validates or not, simply that it was funny seeing a page specifically marketing a product optimized for accessibility and then have a mismatching form label on that specific page. It sort of reminds me about a site who had a link about accessibility which could only be accessed if you had javascript enabled (which then opened up a pop-up window talking about their commitment to accessilibity)
  5. Per Ploug Hansen Says:
    11 December 2007heh looks like they've fixed the validation issues

    atleast the w3c says:
    This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
  6. Simon Says:
    11 December 2007Thanks for bringing this problem to my attention. I've now resolved the issue.

    As I'm sure you're aware, maintaining 100% XHTML strict compliance is an on going process, especially when your site is undergoing continual development and is being updated by non-technical content authors.

    In this case, this minor error was allowed to be published by me omitting to run an internal compliance check after a recent major site upgrade.

    Overall, I think we do an excellent job of maintaining XHTML strict and AAA accessibility compliance ?
  7. Hartvig Says:
    11 December 2007@Simon: Indeed, it's good to see other vendors prioritizing compiance and accessibility - hope you don't mind my mentioning on this blog.

    And it's good to see that you uses Strict.

    It's amazing how many vendors defaults to transitional which - as Roger Johansson says - isn't the way (x)html is constructed to be used (http://24ways.org/2005/transitional-vs-strict-markup).

    /n
  8. Sjors Pals Says:
    12 December 2007Offtopic: I can not login on the Umbraco forum, i did use the password reminder, but that doesn't work :(
  9. Chris Houston Says:
    18 December 2007The Umbraco forums are NOT working. I've been trying to post something for the last hour and it keeps failing.

    I hope you read your comments as I don't know how else to get in touch.

    Chris
  10. Chris Houston Says:
    18 December 2007Just a thought on your comments, I just realised I forgot to include the http:// infront of my URL.

    Why not add a small bit of XSLT that checks for the HTTP:// and if it's not there then add it.

    Chris
  11. Ove Andersen Says:
    08 February 2008Now it is not compliant anymore... :)

    Maybe they are developing on the site live?

    Done it a lot of times. But not good for the users when try are greeted by all sorts of error messages. Good thing I got told about the multiple hostnames thing in Umbraco. Now I can have one test site and one live site and just merge the changes.

Leave comment:


(not shown)


(optional - remember http://)


(sorry, but I'm getting too much spam)