This thread is used to compare and discuss the accessibility of popular WYSIWYGs that might be candidates for inclusion in Drupal core. Right now, that pretty much means a comparison between CKEditor and tinyMCE. Other WYSIWYGs are not exactly out of the running at this point, but let's try to keep this issue on discussing accessibility merits only (on these editors or others) and not on which WYSIWYG we should use overall.
In order to assess TinyMCE and CKEditor we need to test two things;
1. Are the UIs of these editors accessible?
2. Do the editors generate accessible markup?
In order to do this testing we will need to know:
1. Which version of the libraries are we currently considering?
2. What features are we currently considering (e.g. headings, tables, bold, italic, etc.)
Obviously the features can be configured after a user installs D8, but let's look at a fairly wide set of editing features, this will allow us to make a
more informed decision if things are close.
A recommendation of a WYSIWYG editor that both provides an accessible (WCAG 2.0 AA) compliant UI, and which provides the ability to generate WCAG 2.0 AA compliant markup.
The recommendation should come with a rationale and a list of areas in which the editor is not WCAG 2.0 AA compliant. A list of compliance problems in alternative editors should also be provided, to assist with decision making, as accessibility is not the lone criteria for editor selection.
Two posts from:
One of the big accessibility problems with sites comes through bad WYSIWYG editors. I'm interested in helping to see that when we get a WYSIWYG in core it produces clean HTML & can be edited effectively through assistive technology.
However, I echo @mgifford, WYSIWYG creates * many * accessibility issues. My guess is that the only WYSIWYG library worth considering, from an accessibility perspective, is CKEditor.