You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: src/content/en/2024/accessibility.md
+9-9Lines changed: 9 additions & 9 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -840,7 +840,7 @@ There are two means by which we can identify country information, first by the G
840
840
{{ figure_markup(
841
841
image="country-by-geoid.png",
842
842
caption="Most accessible countries by GeoID.",
843
-
description="A bar cart with the GeoID, the country with the highest average for accessibility is the USA with a value of 84%. There is a drop of less a perscent as we move to Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, Netherlands, France, Mexico, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Indonesia, India, Poland, Brazil, Japan, Turkey, Vietnam, China and finally the Republic of Korea with 78%. These were for countries that hosted more than 100000 domains.",
843
+
description="A bar chart with the GeoID, the country with the highest average for accessibility is the USA with a value of 84%. There is a drop of less a perscent as we move to Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, Netherlands, France, Mexico, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Indonesia, India, Poland, Brazil, Japan, Turkey, Vietnam, China and finally the Republic of Korea with 78%. These were for countries that hosted more than 100000 domains.",
@@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ But it is a bit easier to see the TLD ranked and including the non-country codes
868
868
{{ figure_markup(
869
869
image="country-by-tld.png",
870
870
caption="Accessible countries by Top Level Domain (TLD).",
871
-
description="A bar cart with looking at Top Level Domains with more than 45,000 domains, we learn about accessibility. Displayed as a bar chart with the accessible domains .edu (Education), .gov (US Government), Norway, Filand, .io, Canada, USA, .app, UK, Sweden, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, .co, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and South Africa, .org.",
871
+
description="A bar chart with looking at Top Level Domains with more than 45,000 domains, we learn about accessibility. Displayed as a bar chart with the accessible domains .edu (Education), .gov (US Government), Norway, Filand, .io, Canada, USA, .app, UK, Sweden, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, .co, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and South Africa, .org.",
@@ -884,7 +884,7 @@ Not all government domains follow consistent accessibility rules, however we wer
884
884
{{ figure_markup(
885
885
image="accessible-governments.png",
886
886
caption="Most accessible government websites.",
887
-
description="A bar cart with with the most accessible global governments. The Netherlands (98%), Luxembourg (96%), Finland (94%), UK (92%), European Union (91%), Norway (91%), Jersey (91%), Singapore (92%), Belgium (91%), Germany (91%), France (90%), Australia (89%), New Zealand (89%), Dnmark (89%). ",
887
+
description="A bar chart with with the most accessible global governments. The Netherlands (98%), Luxembourg (96%), Finland (94%), UK (92%), European Union (91%), Norway (91%), Jersey (91%), Singapore (92%), Belgium (91%), Germany (91%), France (90%), Australia (89%), New Zealand (89%), Dnmark (89%). ",
@@ -912,7 +912,7 @@ We can also review the accessibility of various states.
912
912
{{ figure_markup(
913
913
image="US-state-governments.png",
914
914
caption="The most accessible US state governments.",
915
-
description="A bar cart with with the most accessible states in the US. Colorado (96%), Vermont (94%), Nevada (93%), South Carolina (91%), Georgia (91%), North Carolina (91%), Kansas (90%), Maine (90%), California (90%), New York (90%), Hawaii (89%), DC (89%), Rhode Island (89%), Missouri (89%), Massachusettes (89%), New Hampshire (89%), Minnesota (89%), Michigan (88%), Oregon (88%), Iowa (88%).",
915
+
description="A bar chart with with the most accessible states in the US. Colorado (96%), Vermont (94%), Nevada (93%), South Carolina (91%), Georgia (91%), North Carolina (91%), Kansas (90%), Maine (90%), California (90%), New York (90%), Hawaii (89%), DC (89%), Rhode Island (89%), Missouri (89%), Massachusettes (89%), New Hampshire (89%), Minnesota (89%), Michigan (88%), Oregon (88%), Iowa (88%).",
@@ -1016,11 +1016,11 @@ The different CMS do have a lot of commonalities in the top errors that they hav
1016
1016
1017
1017
There are many tools which can be used to help authors evaluate the accessibility of a page. Institutions that control the browser configurations of their staff, could choose to simply install the open source <ahreflang="en"href="https://accessibilityinsights.io/docs/web/getstarted/assessment/">Accessibility Insights</a> browser plugin for all of their browsers. This would make errors much more visible to administrators. For many of the CMS above though, the best solution might be to install a tool like <ahreflang="en"href="https://sa11y.netlify.app/">Sa11y</a> or <ahreflang="en"href="https://editoria11y.princeton.edu/">Editoria11y</a> which is geared to help authors. From Joomla version 4.1 onwards <ahreflang="en"href="https://sa11y.netlify.app/joomla/">Sa11y is included by default</a>, so all authors benefit.
1018
1018
1019
-
Website platforms in general performed better than the tTraditional CMS with Wix, Squarespace and Google Sites being significantly better.
1019
+
Website platforms in general performed better than the Traditional CMS with Wix, Squarespace and Google Sites being significantly better.
1020
1020
1021
1021
{{ figure_markup(
1022
1022
image="platform-cms.png",
1023
-
caption="A bar cart with the most accessible Website Platform Content Management Systems (CMS).",
1023
+
caption="A bar chart with the most accessible Website Platform Content Management Systems (CMS).",
1024
1024
description="A bar graph with with the most accessible CMS: Wix (94%), Squarespace (92%), Google Sites (90%), Duda (87%), HubSpot CMS (87%), Pixnet (86%), Weebly (86%), GoDaddy Website Builder (85%), WebNode (84%), Tilda (83%).",
description="A bar cart with meta-frameworks are in the following order RedwoodJS (92%), Remix (89%), Astro (89%), SolidStart(88%), Gatsby (88%), Next.js (87%), Nuxt.js (84%), AdonisJS (82%), Quasar (82%), Meteor (73%).",
1116
+
description="A bar chart with meta-frameworks are in the following order RedwoodJS (92%), Remix (89%), Astro (89%), SolidStart(88%), Gatsby (88%), Next.js (87%), Nuxt.js (84%), AdonisJS (82%), Quasar (82%), Meteor (73%).",
0 commit comments