Hi,
Sadly no.
Thanks,
Alex,
On 21-Jan-09, at 12:13 AM, Søren Jensen wrote:
Hi Esther.
Thanks for the information.
Yesterday, I messed around with tables in Textedit, but it didn't
worked for me. It seems like it doesn't work very well with
Voiceover. Then I had created the table, I couldn't navigate between
the rose and columns. If I pressed tab, I just inserted a tab like
in a normal text-document. If I used the arrow keys, Vo just said
blank. I couldnt find the table with the VO cursor as well. is
tables in textedit even accessible with Voiceover?
Best regards
Søren Jensen
Mail & MSN:
[email protected]
Website:
http://www.coolfortheblind.dk/
On 20/01/2009, at 23.58, Esther wrote:
Hi,
Søren recently posted a request for an accessible HTML editor.
Cara answered with information about TACO, but also mentioned that
you can use TextEdit to edit HTML. There are a few tips about how
to do this in an Apple document titled "How to Set Up TextEdit as
an HTML or Plain Text Editor" available from their Knowledge Base at:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA20406
Make sure you follow these instructions to change your TextEdit
preferences so that you can see an HTML page that you edited
rendered as code rather than as it would appear in a browser.
You can also force strict adherence to html or xhtml format under
the next category of HTML Saving Options (on the same Open and Save
tab), and choosing "HTML 4.01 Strict" or "XHTML 1.0 Strict" on the
popup button for document type, and you can set the popup button
for Styling to "No CSS" if you don't use style sheets for your web
pages.
I'm appending an excerpt from a blog post on using TextEdit for
HTML editing. It's a bit long, so only read this if you're
interested in the details of TextEdit capabilities, like working
with CSS or strict HTML, but I'm posting the excerpt instead of
just giving the URL, because it's in the middle of a discussion
about the author's decisions to stop using Dreamweaver and other
web-design software to edit "clean HTML". The post appeared about
two years ago and discusses a few points like using "Open Recent"
to re-edit the html file, and a gripe about TextEdit using bold (B)
instead of strong (strong).
The excerpt follows.
Cheers,
Esther
<begin excerpt from a blog titled "Musings from Mars">
However, last summer I discovered a really cool trick that TextEdit
can do, which actually makes it a halfway decent HTML editor...
I've now got most of the basics covered.
What I discovered is that TextEdit can convert rich text
constructed using the native Cocoa text, font, and style features
(including lists and tables) to well-formed HTML by selecting the
proper setting in the Open and Save tab of TextEdit's Preferences
window. This preference has been available since at least 10.4.6,
but I don't know how long before that.
Instead, what I discovered is that if you work in a native Cocoa
application like TextEdit using only the tools Apple provides for
word processing you can easily work in a WYSIWYG mode and then
convert the file to clean HTML that you won't be embarrassed to
call your own.
Yes, there are many native, non-WYSIWYG HTML editors for the Mac
that can do this as well -- which don't likewise introduce
extraneous code -- but I was delighted to find I could basically
develop HTML in any native Cocoa app as well! For example, I
currently do a lot of data entry in DevonThink Pro, which -- like
SohoNotes, Journaler, Yojimbo, Curio, VoodooPad, and many others --
enables word processing through the native Cocoa toolset. If you do
the same, you'll find that you can build tables, lists, and any
other text you like in such an application and then, if you need to
convert it to HTML, simply copy and paste it into TextEdit. You
don't need to export the file to RTF or HTML or whatever from the
application in question.
Until last July, I thought TextEdit's HTML conversion ability was
on a par with that of Microsoft's Word and Apple's Pages. That's
probably because in its default mode, it is. If you select "Save as
HTML" when saving a rich-text-formatted document, TextEdit defaults
to saving the file with CSS styles so the end product looks just
like the original. However, it doesn't have to be that way, as it
turns out.
The surprisingly powerful TextEdit provides some very handy, simple
options to produce clean HTML when you need that, something that no
other word processor can do, so far as I know. Here's a brief set
of steps to take advantage of this capability:
• Copy and paste your Cocoa-formatted text into a new TextEdit
document, or format the content directly in TextEdit while it's in
Rich Text mode. (Hint: TextEdit provides an Application Service
(New Window Containing Selection) in the Services menu for grabbing
content once you select it in the originating app.)
• Open TextEdit's Preferences and select the Open and Save tab.
• Change Document Type to either HTML 4.01 Strict or XHTML 1.0
Strict, depending on whether you want your code to be XHTML
compliant or not.
• Change Styling to "No CSS." Note that this will strip all font,
style, and positioning information from the file, except for the
basics like bold and italics.
• From the TextEdit menubar, select File/Save As.
• In the Save As dialog box, give your file a name and hard disk
location. Then, change the File Format selection to HTML, and click
Save. TextEdit will add the .html extension on its own.
Now, when you doubleclick on your new HTML file in the Finder, it
will open with your default web browser. If you examine the source
code, you'll see nothing but simple, pure HTML (or XHTML). The only
'bad' thing I noticed was that the Cocoa HTML Writer that does the
conversion still uses <b> for boldface rather than the 'correct'
<strong>. But that's easy enough to fix... or ignore.
You can now take the HTML code and plop it into your blog post or
any other standard HTML file (which probably already has its own
CSS styles defined), and it will add nothing but pure content to
that file. This has proved to be a real time-saver for me, since it
lets me format lists and tables in any Cocoa app and not have to
worry about how I'm going to convert the data to HTML later on!
What's equally cool is that TextEdit can turn right around and open
that same WYSIWYG file as plain-text HTML. In its default mode,
when you open an HTML file in TextEdit, the software will basically
convert the HTML to RTF style constructs, assuming that's what you
want. However, you can override this behavior, again in the
Preferences, by selecting the checkbox "Ignore rich text commands
in HTML files." With this checked, you can open HTML files as pure
source code and edit them further if you like. Since TextEdit is a
Cocoa app, it will always have the "Open Recent..." menu item in
the File menu, and you'll find that the HTML file you just saved
from TextEdit's WYSIWYG mode is at the top of the list. So what I
do is just
Save the formatted file as HTML.
Select "Open Recent..." and open it again.
Now I have my HTML source I can just tweak or copy/paste to
WordPress, Ecto, or anywhere else I need to use HTML-formatted code.
My one big gripe about TextEdit is that it has no image formatting
controls. It would be nice to be able to do basic align, float,
spacing, and resizing with images you bring into TextEdit, and it
would be awesome to have TextEdit likewise convert such documents
to HTML. As it stands now, though you can add images--and even
video and audio content--to a TextEdit file, your only HTML export
option is to write a "WebArchive", which unfortunately is a WebKit/
Safari-only format that stuffs the text and graphics into a single,
non-editable binary file. (This is a whole other topic... for
Microsoft has a similar, yet different proprietary format for doing
the same thing.) So the HTML editing trick is limited to content
that has no images... you have to add and format the image links in
some other tool.
Still, I've been using TextEdit a ton more than I ever did before,
and it's saved me untold effort in preparing content for Mars these
last 6 months. I'll have more tips about TextEdit in a future
article!
Note to the readers who want to take issue with my statement above
about the <STRONG> being "correct." Just so you know I didn't make
that up, check out the w3c accessibility guidelines on this
subject. I'm sure that my sensitivity and technical training in web
accessibility issues is where I got the impression that <STRONG> is
preferable to <B> these days.
<end excerpt>
