<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TheAccessPond.com &#187; WCAG</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theaccesspond.com/category/wcag/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theaccesspond.com</link>
	<description>Making Accessibility A Reality!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:49:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Heading Tags&#8230;What is your thoughts?</title>
		<link>http://theaccesspond.com/2011/08/24/heading-tags-what-is-your-thoughts/</link>
		<comments>http://theaccesspond.com/2011/08/24/heading-tags-what-is-your-thoughts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Singleton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility Resource]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accessibility and JAWS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WCAG]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theaccesspond.com/?p=172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are apparently two schools of thought on how heading tags should be used on a web page. Some say that you should properly nest them (e.g., h1 followed by h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.). For others, the proper nesting of heading tags is not so [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are apparently two schools of thought on how heading tags should be used on a web page. Some say that you should properly nest them (e.g., h1 followed by h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.). For others, the proper nesting of heading tags is not so important and they feel you should instead use these tags to indicate the importance of the content.</p>
<p>I have found that even on the W3C sites there is a contradiction on this topic. For example the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H42.html#H42-examples">WCAG 2.0 H42 Technique </a>uses an example (example 2) which shows using heading tags that are not properly nested. Under the resource links on that page there are two blog posts that indicate this as well, <a href="http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/07/21/pick-a-heading/">Pick a Heading </a>and <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100418065544/http:/www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/headings/quick-tips-for-accessible-headings/">Quick tips for accessible headings</a>. Yet if you look at the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G141">WCAG 2.0 G141 Technique</a> it is clearly states that, &#8220;To facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure,<strong> authors should use headings that are properly nested</strong> (e.g., h1 followed by h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;d like to get your thoughts on this and how you think heading levels should be used…especially if you are a screen reader user and rely on the heading tags.</p>
<p>-Jeff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://theaccesspond.com/2011/08/24/heading-tags-what-is-your-thoughts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the new CKEditor accessible?</title>
		<link>http://theaccesspond.com/2009/09/04/is-the-new-ckeditor-accessible/</link>
		<comments>http://theaccesspond.com/2009/09/04/is-the-new-ckeditor-accessible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:56:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Singleton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility and JAWS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accessibility in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Explorer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keyboard Shortcuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WCAG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 508]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theaccesspond.com/?p=125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The CKEditor is the newest release of the popular open source web page text editor formally known as the FCKEditor. Unfortunately the previous name was often misrepresented as the [bad word] editor. So the name has been updated and hopefully this will avoid any unpleasant or offensive connections in the future.
I first became aware of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The CKEditor is the newest release of the popular open source web page text editor formally known as the FCKEditor. Unfortunately the previous name was often misrepresented as the [bad word] editor. So the name has been updated and hopefully this will avoid any unpleasant or offensive connections in the future.</p>
<p>I first became aware of the new version of this editor from the following news article:<a href="http://www.h-online.com/open/FCKEditor-drops-the-F--/news/item/114156" target="_blank"> FCKEditor drops the F</a>. This article mentioned that the editor was now &#8216;fully&#8217; accessible to screen readers and keyboard only users. Even the main page for the CKeditor website (<a href="http://ckeditor.com/" target="_blank">http://ckeditor.com/</a>) makes the claim that it has full accessibility support.</p>
<p>This editor is open source and versatile when it comes to implementation so it is has a large install base. You may have used this editor yourself without even knowing it. With the growing attention to accessibility and the legal requirements around this topic an updated &#8216;accessible&#8217; version of this editor is very timely.</p>
<p>I have done some testing in the past with the FCKEditor in regards to accessibility and was curious if this new version was really accessible. So I took a &#8216;quick&#8217; peek to see for myself. My focus for this quick test was not if the editor created accessible content, but on if the editor itself was accessible.</p>
<p><strong>Keyboard Only</strong></p>
<p>I was pleasantly surprised to find that the CKEditor does in fact support the use of only a keyboard! Many of the past keyboard problems with the FCKEditor have been fix. I honestly did not expect the level of keyboard support that I found in the new version of this editor.</p>
<p>To say the least I was very pleased! The one drawback was finding the reference to the keyboard only commands. It wasn’t that hard to find but did take me a few minutes. What would be nice is to have a link or easily discoverable way to allow a user to get this information from within the editor itself.</p>
<p>You can find the reference for the most common supported keyboard commands and navigation shortcuts in the <a href="http://docs.fckeditor.net/CKEditor_3.x/Accessibility" target="_blank">CKEditor Accessibility topics document</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Screen Reader</strong></p>
<p>When it came to using a screen reader like JAWS with the CKEditor I was sure I would discover some major issues. Again, to my surprise JAWS and the CKEditor worked fairly well together. There is still a steep learning curve and at times JAWS got lost which required some screen refreshing and rediscovering of current focus to get my bearings. Compared to the way JAWS and the FCKEditor worked (or should I say did not work) together in the past this was a tremendous improvement.</p>
<p>To CKEditor&#8217;s credit most issues of using JAWS with this product are documented. This was in the <a href="http://docs.fckeditor.net/CKEditor_3.x/Accessibility" target="_blank">CKEditor&#8217;s Accessibility document </a>mentioned early or if you prefer <a href="http://docs.fckeditor.net/CKEditor_3.x/Accessibility#JAWS" target="_blank">jump directly to the JAWS section of that document here</a>.</p>
<p>In case you are interested I used IE 7.0.6001.18000 and JAWS 10.0.1142 for my testing.</p>
<p><strong>In Summary</strong></p>
<p>There are still some areas that are problematic such as switching from <abbr title="What You See Is What You Get">WYSIWYG</abbr> view to the Source view. When this switch occurs the focus jumps from the editor to the top of the page. This is not good for a screen reader user, screen magnifier user or a keyboard only user.</p>
<p>Also, I was not able to find a complete list of keyboard commands for ALL available tool bar options. It could be that those have been deprecated. The FCKEditor had a much larger list than that outlined in the current <a href="http://docs.fckeditor.net/CKEditor_3.x/Accessibility" target="_blank">CKEditor Accessibility Document</a>.</p>
<p>In all fairness I did not do an exhaustive search but I still feel a reference like that, if still applicable,   should be easily discoverable and even be referenced within the <a href="http://docs.fckeditor.net/CKEditor_3.x/Accessibility" target="_blank">CKEditor Accessibility Document</a>.</p>
<p>I should also mention that I did not do a complete test of the editor for accessibility but took a high level approach. Even so, that high level approach shows that the creators of CKEditor have put great effort in making this an accessible product.</p>
<p>This is very commendable because all too often the minimal effort is done so a product can be called accessible. I am not saying that the CKEditor does not have accessibility issues but compared to the previous versions of the FCKEditor the difference is night and day! This was a <strong>*real*</strong> effort to create an accessible product and so I offer a hearty &#8216;WOOT!&#8217; to the CKEditor team!</p>
<p>If you have had a similar or different experience with the new CKEditor please post your comment here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://theaccesspond.com/2009/09/04/is-the-new-ckeditor-accessible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Accessibility Resource:  Adobe Flash Accessibility&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://theaccesspond.com/2009/09/04/accessibility-in-the-news-adobe-flash-accessibility/</link>
		<comments>http://theaccesspond.com/2009/09/04/accessibility-in-the-news-adobe-flash-accessibility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:55:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Adams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility Resource]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accessibility in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WCAG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 508]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accessible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adobe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Best Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flash]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theaccesspond.com/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m going to take a slightly different twist with some posts here as I concede that the many can accomplish far more than a few.  I find and read so many great posts that I didn&#8217;t think it was fair to limit the knowledge we pass to you simply because it came from another source.  [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m going to take a slightly different twist with some posts here as I concede that the many can accomplish far more than a few.  I find and read so many great posts that I didn&#8217;t think it was fair to limit the knowledge we pass to you simply because it came from another source.  We can however try to filter quality information we send your way and I&#8217;ll make every effort to pass on quality information.  Thanks from us here at <a title="TheAccessPond.com" href="http://TheAccessPond.com" target="_self">TheAccessPond.com</a>.</p>
<p>Flash accessibility is a common issue we come across.  Many people think that Section 508 and WCAG standards mean you cannot create a dynamic website&#8230;this I&#8217;m sorry is simply not true.  There is however a different learning curve needed to make Flash content accessible.  Here is a great post I found that discusses the accessibility/usability and some best practices for using Flash content&#8230; <a class="aligncenter" title="Adobe Flash Accessibility:  Best Practices" href="http://sixrevisions.com/usabilityaccessibility/adobe-flash-accessibility-best-practices-for-design/" target="_blank">http://sixrevisions.com/usabilityaccessibility/adobe-flash-accessibility-best-practices-for-design/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://theaccesspond.com/2009/09/04/accessibility-in-the-news-adobe-flash-accessibility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

