Casual Articles - Internet and Businesses Online

Five Solid Reasons To Publish Your Ezine In a Blog!
Get Your Ezine 'Out There'!Placing your ezine in a Blog or a RSS Feed only takes minutes to do. It's easy, fast and free. There's no reason why you shouldn't take advantage of this new technology.Here are 5 solid reasons why you should publish your ezine in a blog:1. To Syndicate Your Ezine. Place your 'content' and 'links' on hundreds of sites. As you probably know by now, the internet is a numbers game - the more links, the more content you have 'out there' - the more traffic you will receive.Syndicating your ezine in a RSS Feed will also make it more readily available to those who don't check their email or for those who get their email blocked by Spam Filters or Overzealous ISPs.2. Get Feedback From Your Readers. In my opinion this is the most important reason to publish your ezine in your blog. It allows for instant reader feedback.Communication with your subscribers is essential for building trust. Instant contact also adds creditability - you are a real human being - ready to answer any questions a subscriber might have.As an extra bonus - your readers also get a chance to add links to their site. Great for reciprocal linking.3. Add to MyYahoo! By getting your subscribers to add your blog to their 'MyYahoo' - your readers have immediate access to your ezine. You don't even need e-mail. The Spam Filters can't touch you!By getting your subscribers to bookmark or

ne of the main criticisms aimed at WCAG 1.0 was the complexity of the language used. Have things improved? Hardly! Pretty much every paragraph is littered with jargon that the average web developer or web manager would be left with no clue as to the meaning.

Clearly aware of the level of jargon, the W3C have made complex terms green underlined links, linking to definitions. This is all well and good in theory, but when most sentences are broken up with one or two links it makes reading these sentences quite difficult.

Even worse though, is that the definitions are just as jargon-filled and difficult to understand as the term being defined! For example:

* Authored unit - Set of material created as a single body by an author

* Programmatically determined - Determined by software from data provided in a user-agent-supported manner such that the user agents can extract and present this information to users in different modalities

* Specific sensory experience - A sensory experience that is not purely d

Employment And Education Verification On Rise With Falsified Information On Resumes
"In the fourth quarter of 2006 Mancini Group found a double digit increase in Employment and Education Verifications" stated Simpson, President of the Mancini Group. As more small and mid-size companies use background checks the increase in our business has been in this area due to more falsification on resumes. We are digging more and finding more information on prospective employees including previous salaries, dates of employment, job titles and job descriptions. In the education areas we are finding more falsified information on graduation dates, majors, minors and specialty education.More small and mid-size companies are asking for a more detailed background checks at the end of 2006. The growth will continue in 2007. As the background information era expands in 2007, we expect an increase in Workers Compensation, 10 panel drug screening, and social security traces. Most of our clients we recommend starting with a social security trace, federal background check, employment, education and workers compensation searches. At one time only large corporations sought that type of information and now it has come full circle. Human Resource departments want the most information on prospective employees.The Top five resume lies include: 1) Phony Graduation certificates and diplomas 2) False Reasons for leaving a job 3) Falsified information about responsibilities and job duties 4) False Salary History 5) Incorrect dates o

The second version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is in final working draft and will soon be officially released. Version 1 of the guidelines ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html ) came under much criticism for being vague, full of jargon and extremely difficult to use. The W3C has been working on version 2.0 of the guidelines ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixB.html ) for over 5 years now, but has it been worth the wait?

What's good about WCAG 2.0?

There have certainly been a number of improvements made to the new guidelines. This is of course to be expected - after 5 years you would expect some improvement! Some of these improvements include:

1. Outdated guidelines removed

A number of guidelines from WCAG 1.0 are well out-of-date. Unfortunately, web developers still implement these out-dated guidelines because they don't know otherwise. Rather than go on an accessibility training course and learn 'real-world' accessibility, many web developers and manager tick boxes against guidelines.

Some of the out-of-date WCAG 1.0 guidelines, which have been removed from WCAG 2.0 include:

* 1.5 - Provide equivalent text links for links within client-side image maps
* 5.6 - Provide abbreviations for table header labels, if you use these
* 9.5 - Use access keys (keyboard shortcuts) for important links
* 10.3 - Don't use tables with more than one column for layout
* 10.4 - Make sure form fields aren't empty by default
* 10.5 - Ensure different links have non-link text between them

(Please note, the above isn't the exact wording of the guidelines - each of the original guidelines has been translated from the official W3C guideline into more easy-to-understand language.)

The above guidelines have all been removed from WCAG 2.0, so shouldn't be adhered to.

2. Good real world techniques provided

The document, Techniques for WCAG 2.0 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html ) replaces the previous techniques document, and is actually much better. It provides a list of common failures, which the previous version didn't, and actually offers some excellent examples of common errors.

The other major improvement in this techniques document is that the examples provided are far more real-world. The WCAG 1.0 techniques document used text such as PortMaster 3 with ComOS 3.7.1 in their examples, but who has any idea what this means? The new document is far better in this respect, using examples such as phone numbers and calendars, for example.

The techniques document also provides some clever recommendations, which accessibility guideline box-ticking developers wouldn't perhaps have thought have. For example:

* How to open a link in a new window using unobtrusive JavaScript
* Displaying decorative images through CSS
* Combining text and its adjacent image image in the same link
* Providing a heading at the beginning of each section on the page

...And many more! Do have a good look at the WCAG 2.0 techniques document as there's lots of useful guidance here using quite easy-to-understand examples.

3. New guidelines included

A number of new guidelines have been brought into WCAG 2.0. Some of these guidelines are totally new whereas others were hinted at, but not specifically stated, in WCAG 1.0. Some examples include:

* Providing text-based error messages for forms
* Ensure all pages have a descriptive title
* Background noise can be turned off

For a full list of brand new guidelines that don't map to any version 1 guidelines, have a look at the W3C's Comparison of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints to WCAG 2.0 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixD.html#newl1 ).

What's not good about WCAG 2.0?

So there certainly have been some improvements made to the W3C accessibility guidelines. But is it all good news? Have the problems associated with WCAG 1.0 been eliminated for this version 2 of the guidelines? Well not quite, as there are still a number of problems...

1. Verbose and jargon-filled language

One of the main criticisms aimed at WCAG 1.0 was the complexity of the language used. Have things improved? Hardly! Pretty much every paragraph is littered with jargon that the average web developer or web manager would be left with no clue as to the meaning.

Even worse though, is that the definitions are just as jargon-filled and difficult to understand as the term being defined! For example:

* Authored unit - Set of material created as a single body by an author

* Specific sensory experience - A sensory experience that is not purely de

Filing Payroll Taxes
An organization has a large number of employees who receive a salary for the work they do. Some employees may be paid a stable salary while others are paid on the basis of productivity or the number of hours worked. All organizations having employees are in charge of paying payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are all the different forms of employment taxes paid by the organization and covers Federal and state income tax, social security and Medicare taxes and federal unemployment tax. Payroll taxes are deducted from the employees pay. Filing pay roll taxes becomes an important task in order to maintain proper record and pay taxes regularly.There are a number of forms and documents that need to be filed with the IRS. Payroll taxes involve large number of deductions and exemptions that are to be taken into account during the filing process. First, pay roll taxes need to be calculated accurately and each of the employees is required to fill out a form know Form W-4. The form helps to calculate payroll taxes. The form is used to calculate federal and state income tax to be deducted from the salaries of the employees. Social security and Medicare deductions are also considered and the amount to be paid is calculated. Both the employer and the employee pay the calculated amount.The organization must also file Form 941 with the IRS. In case of agricultural employees Form 943 needs to be filed. The amounts mentioned in Form 941 should be in accordance with the amounts given every month using tax coupons or the EFTPS. At the end of the tax year, Form 940, whi

against guidelines.

Some of the out-of-date WCAG 1.0 guidelines, which have been removed from WCAG 2.0 include:

(Please note, the above isn't the exact wording of the guidelines - each of the original guidelines has been translated from the official W3C guideline into more easy-to-understand language.)

The above guidelines have all been removed from WCAG 2.0, so shouldn't be adhered to.

2. Good real world techniques provided

The techniques document also provides some clever recommendations, which accessibility guideline box-ticking developers wouldn't perhaps have thought have. For example:

...And many more! Do have a good look at the WCAG 2.0 techniques document as there's lots of useful guidance here using quite easy-to-understand examples.

3. New guidelines included

A number of new guidelines have been brought into WCAG 2.0. Some of these guidelines are totally new whereas others were hinted at, but not specifically stated, in WCAG 1.0. Some examples include:

* Providing text-based error messages for forms
* Ensure all pages have a descriptive title
* Background noise can be turned off

What's not good about WCAG 2.0?

1. Verbose and jargon-filled language

Even worse though, is that the definitions are just as jargon-filled and difficult to understand as the term being defined! For example:

* Authored unit - Set of material created as a single body by an author

* Specific sensory experience - A sensory experience that is not purely d

From the Top of Email Mountain
Ever feel like you are getting Thousands of ads you dont care about and will never read?You probably are. Between safelists and ezines you join to get a free product(we have all done it) You simply get bombarded.The result from all this is that most ads do not get read or even looked at and some get deleted automatically. Sad for you if you are sending your ad out to garbage mailboxes.As things do, online marketing is always progressing and the newest trends are advertising mediums where your ads can be read online. Not only does this cut down IMMENSLY on email but it TARGETS your marketing as the person you are reaching has made a conscious choice to read your ad.One of the newest trends is the no email safelist. This has the best of both worlds since the ads are read online and ALSO spurred by incentives making your ad a valuable commodity. No list address is necessary since there is no list mail sent . members have the option to receive solo ads if they wish which of course are incentive spurred once again. What are these incentives? Points to have your own ad posted on the site. By far the best feature is the points system and how it works. If a person posts an ad no points are used at that time. When the ad is actually read points are deducted NOT BEFORE! This means if you are running out of points this is a good thing for a change.This medium has solved the bounce problem since no list mail is sent and solos are by choice only.At one time safelists were all there was You now have a choice

s actually much better. It provides a list of common failures, which the previous version didn't, and actually offers some excellent examples of common errors.

The techniques document also provides some clever recommendations, which accessibility guideline box-ticking developers wouldn't perhaps have thought have. For example:

...And many more! Do have a good look at the WCAG 2.0 techniques document as there's lots of useful guidance here using quite easy-to-understand examples.

3. New guidelines included

A number of new guidelines have been brought into WCAG 2.0. Some of these guidelines are totally new whereas others were hinted at, but not specifically stated, in WCAG 1.0. Some examples include:

* Providing text-based error messages for forms
* Ensure all pages have a descriptive title
* Background noise can be turned off

What's not good about WCAG 2.0?

1. Verbose and jargon-filled language

Even worse though, is that the definitions are just as jargon-filled and difficult to understand as the term being defined! For example:

* Authored unit - Set of material created as a single body by an author

* Specific sensory experience - A sensory experience that is not purely d

The Great Blog Debate: Can They Be Taken Seriously?
According to Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal, if you are one who writes blogs, you are a fool. If that is not bad enough, if you read them, you are an imbecile. What would you rather be? Unfortunately, I guess I am both, because I am guilty of both. I find this interesting coming from a publication that is still trying to sell content that people can get for free else where. Ideologically, I agree with the editorial pages of the Journal on most economic and political issues, but they completely underestimate the power of the Web. Then again, virtually every traditional publication is guilty of this short sightedness. Or is it wishful thinking, similar to what canal boat owners had about trains and trains had about planes (hoping the web is just a fad)?Rago paints with a broad brush, attacking blogs in general at will and his criticisms seem to cross ideological lines. He generally (and it appears, genuinely) dislikes blogs as a media, although the Wall Street Journal has blogs of their own. Rago is right, to a point, there certainly are numerous blogs that are not worth the space. This was pointed out very clearly in David A. Utter's piece at Webpronews.com (an excellent article). Rago's basic premise is that the blogs are largely made up of unaccountable individuals, with insufficient skills, and significant axes to grind. This is a dangerous formula in the eyes of the media elite.But is that not the case with all media? Some media is excellent and other sources are disastrous and there are many more that falls in between. Was there ex

as there's lots of useful guidance here using quite easy-to-understand examples.

3. New guidelines included

A number of new guidelines have been brought into WCAG 2.0. Some of these guidelines are totally new whereas others were hinted at, but not specifically stated, in WCAG 1.0. Some examples include:

* Providing text-based error messages for forms
* Ensure all pages have a descriptive title
* Background noise can be turned off

What's not good about WCAG 2.0?

1. Verbose and jargon-filled language

Even worse though, is that the definitions are just as jargon-filled and difficult to understand as the term being defined! For example:

* Authored unit - Set of material created as a single body by an author

* Specific sensory experience - A sensory experience that is not purely d

A Powerful Partnership: Legal Marketing and Graphic Design
There is no room for a disconnect between the image your firm is projecting and the position you seek to carve out of the marketplace. More than ever, shifts in the legal industry are shining a bright light on business development. As the face of the firm evolves, its storytellers, i.e. the logo, firm brochure, practice area literature, recruitment material, trade publication ads, event invitations, newsletters, and the web site need to reflect the change. Collectively and individually, these ambassadors make a great case in favor of judging a book by its cover. How they look is just as important as their content.Shaping that look, as well as shaping perception, is a function of graphic design. Strategic graphic design begins at the point where business goals and creativity intersect. A design, no matter how eye-catching, will fall short of success if that point of intersection has been missed. Sharp graphics alone lack the substance to define identity, but offer plenty of style.Style is driven by trend. Style, rather than the firm, becomes the focus of this design approach. The design may be unusual. It may use appealing typestyles, sport a catchy headline, feature compelling illustrations, and photos of each principal attorney. Brochure design may even include a splash of purple. But will this design translate firm-wide from an invitation to a practice area brochure? It may have distinguished your firm from others, but, quite likely, has left an impression that is unrelated to firm character and unique strengths. As a corporate storyteller,

Even worse though, is that the definitions are just as jargon-filled and difficult to understand as the term being defined! For example:

* Authored unit - Set of material created as a single body by an author

* Specific sensory experience - A sensory experience that is not purely decorative and does not primarily convey important information or perform a function

* Web unit - A collection of information, consisting of one or more resources, intended to be rendered together, and identified by a single Uniform Resource Identifier (such as URLs)

Ironically, there's even a definition provided for the word 'jargon'!

Furthermore, it seems that some jargon used in WCAG 1.0, which webmasters have gotten used to, has been replaced with equally incomprehensible words. For example, we no longer have Priority 1, 2 and 3 to aim for - instead we now have success criteria level 1, 2 and 3.

2. Awful usability

Another major criticism of the WCAG 1.0 guidelines was how difficult it is to find specific guidance and answers. It doesn't take too long to discover that the WCAG 2.0 guidelines quite clearly offer the same low level of usability.

Reasons for this poor usability include:

* The level of jargon and complexity of language is truly phenomenal (as outlined above)
* The text is littered with links making it very difficult to read
* The two main documents, Understanding WCAG 2.0 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ ) and Techniques for WCAG 2.0 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060427/Overview.html ) are 164 and 363 pages long in total (when doing a print preview)

If only the W3C carried out basic usability testing of how people actually use (or are unable to use) these guidelines! What they'd undoubtedly find is that users won't understand most guidelines and will end up blindly clicking links to find out how to meet these guidelines.

As with WCAG 1.0, clicking on most links from the WCAG 2.0 guidelines simply takes users into the middle of massive pages full of difficult-to-understand text. The text, of course, is densely littered with links. Users will probably click on a link again in the desperate hope that they'll somehow find some text that clearly and succinctly explains what they need to do. They'll usually be disappointed.

Organising the massive amount of content available is certainly not an easy task - but why not, as a start, split up these massive documents into more manageable and less intimidating sets of smaller documents? Then, carry out some usability testing, refine, and test again.

3. Useful guidelines gone

Although there are a number of useful, new guidelines in WCAG 2.0, a number of important guidelines from WCAG 1.0 have been removed or are only vaguely referred to. These include, but aren't limited to:

* 3.1 - Avoid embedding text within images.
* 3.2 - Create documents that validate.
* 3.3 - Use CSS and not tables for layout.
* 3.4 - Ensure text is resizable.
* 12.3 - Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate.
* 13.8 - Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc.
* 14.1 - Use clear and simple language.

(Please note, the above isn't the exact wording of the guidelines - each of the original guidelines has been translated from the official W3C guideline into more easy-to-understand language.)

Particularly worrying is the removal of the final three guidelines, all of which relate to the accessibility of content. A major part of any website's accessibility, and one that's often overlooked, is the site's usability and how the content is written and structured.

Accessible content is crucial for all special needs users, particularly those with learning difficulties and dyslexia. Perhaps the reason these guidelines have been removed is because content guidelines are fluffier and harder to measure than technical accessibility guidelines. Whatever the reason, this is not a good step for accessibility.

4. Technology neutral and the concept of the baseline

WCAG 1.0 states quite clearly that alternatives to JavaScript, PDFs and Flash must all be provided, as assistive technologies such as screen readers can't access these. Although this was generally true in 1999, it's not the case now, and nowadays JavaScript, PDFs and

HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.casualarticles.com/article/86659/casualarticles-WCAG-20-The-New-W3C-Web-Accessibility-Guidelines-Evaluated.html">WCAG 2.0: The New W3C Web Accessibility Guidelines Evaluated</a>

BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.casualarticles.com/article/86659/casualarticles-WCAG-20-The-New-W3C-Web-Accessibility-Guidelines-Evaluated.html]WCAG 2.0: The New W3C Web Accessibility Guidelines Evaluated[/url]

To create a credible presentation, you must provide supporting materials to back up your claims. Although people might like you and want to believe you, a well-crafted presentation includes proofs demonstrating that what you say is true. This article outlines the various proofs you can use in your presentations.

Training your staff is an essential investment in today’s changing and competitive environment. But just sending staff to attend training programs is not enough. You should maximize the impact of your investment by following these key guidelines before, during and after the training.

Link Building is the main reason why websites get listed at the tops of the search engines. It is actually more important than SEO, so in order to get great free targeted traffic from the organic search engine results, link building is a must. Link building is basically anytime another website links from their site to yours.

Tags

Links

Casual Articles - WCAG 2.0: The New W3C Web Accessibility Guidelines Evaluated

Related Articles: