On not choosing WordPress for the W3C redesign project
The W3C redesign project is an incredibly exciting one for us at Studio 24, it’s an honour to be working with an organisation we have looked up to for our whole career. But it’s also challenging, with many aspects coming under more scrutiny than we’re normally used to. It’s also made harder in this time of pandemic, with increased anxiety and challenges working effectively during this “new normal” we’re all living in.
We’re happy to rise to this challenge. Yesterday a well written article was published by WordPress Tavern on W3C dropping WordPress from consideration which I’d like to respond to.
We’ve tackled a huge variety of work so far from initial Discovery, User Research, Information Architecture, Content Design and UX Design that has helped move the project forward.
The CMS platform decision is just part of this and for the end website is one of the less visible aspects. As you can read from Marie’s report on the work we did to choose Craft CMS you can see the steps we went through to help shortlist and choose a CMS.
For us, and the requirements from W3C, the delivery of accessible HTML/CSS pages that meet user needs is the most important part of this project - and where we are focussing our time. All in, we spent around 15 days on the CMS platform choice. Enough to help evaluate a limited number of options, but not enough to do a thorough review of the state of accessibility in a wide range of CMSs.
We were surprised by the accessibility issues that cropped up in CMS platforms after our initial CMS review. This prompted us to prioritise accessibility above other requirements due to the principles and values of W3C.
Studio 24 is a firm supporter of open source software and we use WordPress extensively for our client work. For this project we had committed to not selecting a CMS until we’d had the chance to better understand client requirements.
An important consideration for WordPress was accessibility concerns with the new Gutenberg editor. Many have written about the accessibility issues the project has had as well as the positive steps to improve accessibility in Gutenberg.
We tested Gutenberg six months before it was released in WordPress 5. Recently we worked on a project for the University of Cambridge creating a site for their Alumni magazine. This launched in April 2020 and uses Gutenberg to manage content. This gave us a good idea of how Gutenberg works. In June, we reviewed the current accessibility issue backlog (issues, a11y project) and had some feedback from users with accessibility needs who had difficulties using the current user interface. This was a contributing factor in our decision that WordPress was not a good fit for this project.
Given the importance the WordPress project has put on Gutenberg as the future of WordPress we did not feel it was reasonable to recommend using the Classic Editor if there is a good chance this will not be supported in the future. At present Classic Editor is slated for end of life in Dec 2021.
We look forward to the continued development of Gutenberg and applaud efforts to make it more accessible. We appreciate improvements have been made since our review and we’re very glad to see the WordPress Accessibility Day on 2nd October.
From a business perspective I also believe Gutenberg creates a complexity issue that makes it challenging for use by many agencies who create custom websites for clients; where we have a need to create lots of bespoke blocks and page elements for individual client projects.
As of yet, we have not found a satisfactory (and profitable) way to build custom Gutenberg blocks for commercial projects. We won’t stop trying though and plan to do more R&D with Gutenberg in the future. The W3C project, however, did not feel like the right place to do this. On a project as wide-ranging as this one, development time does become a factor.
Drupal also has this complexity issue which makes developing sites harder than it needs to be, and is why we didn’t consider that platform either. I’ve talked to other agencies who have decided to drop Drupal due to its complexity.
The W3C embraces and supports the open web. However, as an agency we also have to be practical when it comes to the tools we use to build sites. From our review, which was focussed on PHP-based CMSs, Craft and Statamic came out as meeting all the key requirements and are both very developer-friendly platforms. An important consideration for a tool that we need to hand over to W3C to maintain in the future.
While their source code is open, they do have commercial licenses and cost money (though a modest sum). Charging money enables small teams to develop good software, so we’re not ideologically against this business model. Both platforms are well respected in the community and well-used by professionals, running sites such as Netflix and Big Commerce in Craft, Spiegel Plus and FreshBooks in Statamic.
Open tools will continue to be used to publish the standards of the web. The Technical Reports page is powered by Symfony and specifications will continue to be published to GitHub to facilitate open discussion. Nothing’s changing with how the W3C work in the open.
This may give W3C better flexibility for the future, though comes at a cost of added complexity. The W3C site is already made up of a lot of different systems, the CMS is just one part of the what makes up the varied content on w3.org.
I hope this helps explain the thought process behind our decision a little more and addresses some of the valid concerns highlighted in the WordPress Tavern post.