Guide the author to produce accessible content:

ATAG Checkpoint 3.1: Assist the author to create structured content. [Relative Priority]

ATAG Checkpoint 3.2: Assist the author to separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]

ATAG Checkpoint 3.3: Assist the author to ensure device independent control. [Relative Priority]

Techniques:

• Allow the author to transform presentation markup that is misused to convey structure into structural markup, and to transform presentation markup used for style into style sheets.[T0431]@@new category and T####@@
• Allow the author to define transformations for imported documents that have presentation, rather than structural, markup. [T0209] @@from ATAG1 4.5@@
• Remember that accessibility information, including attributes or properties of the elements being transformed, must be preserved - see checkpoint 1.2. [T0210] @@from ATAG1 4.5@@
• Some examples of transformations include [T0432]: @@new category and T####@@@@from ATAG1 4.5@@
  • Implementing XSLT in the tool. [T0211]
  • HTML: table-based layout into CSS. [T0212]
  • HTML: BR to the P element. [T0213]
  • HTML: (deprecated) FONT into heuristically or author-determined structure. [T0214]
  • Word processor styles to Web styles. [T0215]
  • HTML: deprecated presentational markup into CSS. [T0216]
  • XHTML: span into ruby. [T0217]
  • MathML: presentational markup to semantic markup. [T0218]
• Implement XSLT [XSLT] together with a user-interface for expressing transformations (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 2.1). [T0219] @@from ATAG1 4.5@@
• Allow the author to create style rules based on the formatting properties of an element, and then apply the rule to other elements in the document, to assist conversion of documents to the use of style sheets. [T0220] @@from ATAG1 4.5@@
• Include pre-written transformations to rationalize multiple tables
• Transform (deprecated) presentation HTML into style sheets. [T0221] @@from ATAG1 4.5@@
• Support author's of DTD's or Schemas to specify explicit structure. For example, encourage nesting where appropriate. [T0118]
• Provide an outline view that lets the author clearly see the structure of the document independently of the specified presentation. [T0433]@@new category and T####@@
• Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation as required by the following WCAG10 checkpoints. (Note: An asterix (*) denotes those WCAG checkpoints that involve the inclusion of equivalent alternative information which, although related to the separation of information from presentation, is already covered by Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 4.1) [T0119]:
  • @@WCAG checkpoints will subdivide the list@@
  • Prompt the author to ensure a color independent indicator. [T0121]
  • Provide a monochrome preview for the author to test themselves. [T0122]
  • When a foreground or background color is defined, prompt for a contrasting background or foreground color. [T0434] @@new category and T####@@@@From F2F@@
  • Prompt the author to identify the structural role of content that has been emphasized through styling. [T0125]
  • Provide a view which allows the author to edit the layout and styling effects independently of the text content. [T0126]
  • Recognize formatting patterns and convert them to style rules. [T0127]
  • Prompt the author to identify headings and subheadings. [T0129]
  • Provide an "outline" or "structure" view which allows the author to easily grasp the heading structure, and edit it. [T0130]
  • Recognize formatting conventions such as a number of consecutive paragraphs beginning with a bullet character (this may be a "bullet" or another punctuation character like asterisk or dash "-") being used to identify a list. [T0131]
  • Include lists (marked as lists) in a collapsible structure view. [T0132]
  • Where material appears within quote marks ask the author if this is a quotation. [T0133]
  • Use a dictionary lookup system to recognize changes of language, or use of abbreviations and acronym. [T0134 ]
  • Recognize collections of uppercase letters as likely abbreviations (in languages that have case) and prompt the author for an expansion, to be provided in markup (e.g., in HTML, with abbr or acronym). [T0135]
  • Prompt the author (and allow them to specify a default suggestion) for the language of a document. [T0136]
  • Prompt the author to provide header information for tabular data. [T0137] @@PJ indicated he would work on this@@
  • Ask the author to group columns, rows, or blocks of cells that are related. [T0138] @@PJ indicated he would work on this@@
  • Prompt the author to identify tables as used for layout or data. [T0139]
  • For layout tables, provide a linearized version, and offer it as a link from the table or as a replacement. [T0140]
  • Incorporate tablin, a tool that linearizes and transforms tables. [T0141]
  • Provide a "draft" view which does not apply styling. [T0144]
  • Prompt for alternative content for applets and programmatic objects. [T0145]
  • Prompt for server-side alternatives for essential client-side scripts (those used for content and navigation) and applets. [T0146]
  • During applet development, prompt the author to include device-independent means of activation. [T0147]
  • Include a "no scripts" view. [T0421] @@new category and T####@@ @@proposed at F2F@@
  • Where regions are not easily defined, ask the author to provide information that can be used to generate a form-based input method and explains how the coordinates input will be used. For example, for a geographic map the input might be used to look up latitude and longitude of a point and then give information about that point. [T0154]
  • Provide a link to skip over objects (since some browsers cause objects to permanently capture the tab focus). [T0435] @@new category and T####@@@@proposed at F2F@@
  • Where there are only a few links that change in each page of a collection, ask the author if they should receive focus first. If so, then appropriately update the tabindex order. [T0157]
  • Ask authors to specify an accesskey for links that appear common to a number of pages. [T0158]
  • Prompt the author for a longdesc for each frame in a frameset. [T0164]
  • Prompt the author to add a noframes section to the frameset. Encourage the author to include sufficient links to navigate the site, and relevant information. For example, where a frameset defines a navigation frame and a welcome page, include the content of each of these frames in the noframes. [T0165]
  • When frames used for a mosaic of images, allow inclusion of markup files (with images embedded) rather than images directly. [T0422] @@new category and T####@@ @@proposed at F2F@@
  • Where there are more than 10 choices in a list (select, checkbox or radio boxes) ask the author to identify subgroups. [T0166]
  • Ask authors to mark explicitly the labels for form inputs (input and textarea elements). [T0167]
  • Metadata: Ask authors for information about a page or site. If its function is known (see also WCAG checkpoint 13.9) add this information as metadata. [T0423] @@new@@
  • Ask authors if lists of links are a group and should be a map. [T0168]
  • Provide readability ratings for text. [T0169]
  • Provide a thesaurus function. [T0170]
  • Provide a grammar-checking function. [T0171]
• The following WCAG checkpoints are not considered relevant to this checkpoint (since they do not refer to the creation of structured content or the separation of information from its presentation):

Reference:

• The WAI Evaluation and Repair group [WAI-ER] is developing a document that discusses detailed techniques for testing the accessibility of content according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and methods of repairing it. A draft of that document is available [AUTO-TOOL].

Sample(s):

ATAG Checkpoint 3.4: Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). [Relative Priority]

Techniques:

• Provide a preview mode that displays alternative content. Although this may quickly give authors a clear understanding of some problems, they should be warned that there are many other less predictable ways in which a page may be presented (aurally, text-only, text with pictures separately, on a small screen, on a large screen, etc.). Other helpful document views include: a "no style sheets" view and a "no images" view. [T0092]
• When non-text content changes, alternative equivalent information associated with that content needs to be kept up to date. Prompt the author to ensure that equivalent still covers the functionality of the non-text content. [T0429] @@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
• Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). Because this ATAG checkpoint has a relative priority, it is the priority of the relevant WCAG checkpoints that determines the level of conformance of the tool to the ATAG checkpoint [T0093] : @@all of this may need more detail?@@
  • Types of alternative information (applicable WCAG checkpoints will subdivide the list later)
    • Short Text Labels (for alternate text, titles, etc.): These types of alternative equivalents require only short text strings from the author, so the prompts for them may be best located as text boxes within property dialogs, etc. An important consideration is that the function of the object (decorative, button, spacer, etc.) will be important to the instructions given to the author on what to write. The object function may be prompted for or discovered by automated heuristics. [T0404]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
    • Long Text Descriptions (for Longdesc, etc.: These types of alternative equivalents require more screen area to author and are only required when the object is not already sufficiently described. The author may first be prompted as to whether the inserted object is adequately described (a "no images" view may help them decide). If the short description is inadequate, the author should be prompted for the location of a preexisting description. Failing that, the author will need a description writing utility (that would include a preview of the object and description writing pointers). Since description writing can be time-consuming, it is preferable for the tool to have some ability to store and reuse the description (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 4.4) as an incentive for the author. [T0405]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
    • Image Map Text Labels: Image maps require multiple text labels (one for each area) as well as redundant text links. Since the same labels may be used for the area labels and the text links, the tool might prompt the author to add all the labels and text links for all the areas at the same time (rather than a separate prompt for each area). To aid the author, the tool might search the document for links that point to the same URI, then use the link text as place-holder text in the labeling prompt. [T0102, T0104]
    • Transcripts of Audio or Video: The author should be prompted for the location of a preexisting transcript of the audio or video. Failing this, one will have to be created. Although transcript writing is a complex process for long media files, tools might include simple transcription writing suites (with built-in media players) for short media files. [T0406]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
    • Captions for Video: The author should be prompted for the location of a captioned version of the video. The creation of captions can be a time consuming process but public domain tools do exist for relatively simple captions (e.g., Magpie). [T0407]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
    • Described Video: The author should be prompted for the location of a described version of the video. The recording of traditional video descriptions (that are encoded into the video file where silent periods occur in the original soundtrack) is a complex process that may be beyond the average author. However, technologies are becoming available that allow the audio description files to be stored separately, to be played only if requested by the user. [T0430]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
    • Signed Translation of Audio or Video: The author should be prompted for the location of a version of the audio or video with signed translation. The creation of signed translation video files is assumed to be beyond the average author but new technologies are being developed for automated sign language animation to be generated from text. [T0408]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
    • Ideogram Rubies (for Japanese, Chinese, and other appropriate languages): When unusual ideograms are inserted, prompt the author for text that can be used as a ruby. This can be done in the same way as short text labels. [T0095]
    • Element Role: The roles that elements play (e.g., tables for layout or data; frames for navigation bars, headers, etc.) are important for a number of WCAG10 checkpoints. To determine the role of a particular element instance, the tool might query the author. The answer received should be saved by some means to prevent having to ask the question again. Alternatively, some tools might use automated heuristics to determine which role the table is playing. [T0414]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
  • Still Images of Video: The author should be prompted for the location of a still image. If this fails, the tool might allow the user to take a snapshot from the video to use as the still. [T0409]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
  • Form field place-holders: When tools prompt the author for this text, they might suggest nearby text strings (which may be implicit labels). [T0417]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
  • Site information: Tools might prompt the author to provide a link or content describing the structure of the site, and its accessibility features as part of a list of general considerations displayed after an accessibility check, etc. [T0115]
  • Document Collections Information: Tools might ask authors to specify the role of pages linked from a navigation bar. Where common names are used (search, home, map) as links, tools might ask the author to confirm these functions for use in linking. [T0116, T0117]
  • Non-Text Supplements to Text: Since prompting the author about every instance of text is intolerable, this requirement might be included in a list of general considerations displayed after an accessibility check, etc. [T0420]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
  • Table Summaries: Tools might include a summary text field in a table creation wizard. See techniques for long descriptions.[T0415] @@new category and T####@@ @@new@@
  • Alternate Page or Site: The author should be prompted for the location of the alternative content. If there is no alternative content, the tool might support the author by providing a copy of the content with the problematic formatting removed. [T0413]@@new category and T####@@ @@new@@

Reference:

• For more information on different methods for prompting, see Appendix A.

ATAG Checkpoint 3.5: Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]

Techniques:

• If the author has not specified an alternative equivalent, default to leaving out the relevant attribute, rather than including the attribute with no value or with automatically-generated content. Leaving out the attribute will increase the probability that the problem will be detected by checking algorithms (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 5.1). [T0176]
• If human-authored equivalent alternatives may be available for an object (for example, through Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 4.4 and/or Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 3.4), it is appropriate for the tool to offer these to the author as defaults. [T0177]
• The function of objects is considered to be known with certainty when they are used throughout a Web site in a standard way (e.g., graphical navigation bars). In this case, the objects should have standard alternative information. Where an object has already been used in a document, the tool should offer the alternative information that was supplied for the first or most recent use as a default. If the user changes the alternative content, they might be asked whether all instances of the object should have their alternative content updated with the new value. [T0178, T0179]

ATAG Checkpoint 3.6: Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing equivalent alternatives for multimedia objects. [Priority 3]

Note: This checkpoint is priority 3 and is, therefore, not required to be implemented in order for a tool to conform to ATAG 1.0 at the single-A and double-AA levels. However, implementing this checkpoint has the potential to simplify the satisfaction of several higher priority checkpoints (ATAG checkpoint 4.1, ATAG checkpoint 4.2, and ATAG checkpoint 4.3) and improve the usability of the tool.

Techniques:

• Maintain a registry that associates object identity information with alternative information (this could be done with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF10]). Whenever an object is used and an equivalent alternative is collected (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 4.1) add the object (or identifying information) and the alternative information to the database. In the case of a text equivalent, the alternate information may be stored in the document source. For more substantial information (such as video captions or audio descriptions), the information may be stored externally and linked from the document source. Allow different alternative information to be associated with a single object. [T0180]
• Stored alternative information can be presented to the author as default text in the appropriate field, whenever one of the associated files is inserted into the author's document. This satisfies ATAG checkpoint 4.3 because the equivalent alternatives are not automatically generated and they are only reused with author confirmation. [T0181]
• When no stored association is found, the field should be left empty (i.e., no purely rule-generated alternative information should be used). Note: The term "default" implies that the alternative information is offered for the author's approval. The term does not imply that the default alternative information is automatically placed without the author's approval. Such automatic placement may only occur when in situations where the function of the object is known with certainty, per ATAG checkpoint 4.3. Such a situation might arise in the case of a "navigation bar builder" that places a navigation bar at the bottom of every page on a site. In this case, it would be appropriate to use the same "alt"-text automatically for every instance of a particular image (with the same target) on every page. [T0182]
• The stored alternative information required for ATAG checkpoint 3.4 might be part of the management system, allowing the alternative equivalents to be retrieved whenever the prepackaged objects are inserted. [T0183]
• Tools might allow authors to make keyword searches of a description database (to simplify the task of finding relevant images, sound files, etc.). A paper describing a method to create searchable databases for video and audio files is available (refer to [SEARCHABLE]). [T0184]

Provide ways of checking for and correcting inaccessible content:

ATAG Checkpoint 3.7: Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Relative Priority]

Note: Accessibility problems should be detected automatically where possible. Where this is not possible, the tool may need to prompt the author to make decisions or to manually check for certain types of problems. @@How exactly should we handle the AERT?@@.

Techniques:

• See AERT document for evaluation and repair algorithms. [T0186]
• Highlight problems detected when documents are opened, when an editing or insertion action is completed, or while an author is editing. Using CSS classes to indicate accessibility problems will enable the author to easily configure the presentation of errors. [T0187]
• Alert authors to accessibility problems when saving. [T0188]
• Accessibility problems can be highlighted using strategies similar to spell checking within a word processor. Accessibility alerts within the document can be linked to context sensitive help. (See the Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 6.1) [T0189]
• Where the tools cannot test for accessibility errors, provide the author with the necessary information, wizards, etc. to check for themselves. [T0190]
• Include alerts for WCAG Priority 1 checkpoints in the default configuration. [T0191]
• Provide an editing view that shows equivalent alternatives in the main content view to make it clear that they are necessary. This will make it obvious when they are missing. [T0192]
• Allow authors to choose different alert levels based on the priority of authoring accessibility recommendations. [T0193]
• If intrusive warnings are used, provide a means for the author to quickly set the warning to non-obtrusive to avoid frustration. [T0194]

Reference:

• There are online tools whose output can be integrated with the user interface. Other tools are available for incorporation in existing software, either as licensed products or in some cases as "open source" solutions. The WAI Evaluation and Repair group maintains information about available tools [WAI-ER]. [T0195]
• The Web Accessibility Initiative's Protocols and Formats group have a draft set of notes about creating accessible markup languages [XMLGL]. [T0196]

ATAG Checkpoint 3.8: Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. [Relative Priority]

Techniques:

• At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the accessibility checking required by ATAG Checkpoint 5.1. [T0197]
• Where there are site-wide errors, to make correction more efficient, allow the author to make site-wide changes or corrections. For example, this may be appropriate for a common error in markup, but may not be appropriate in providing a text equivalent that is appropriate for one use of an image but completely inappropriate for the other uses of the image on the same site (or even the same page). [T0198]
• Assist authors in ways that are consistent with the look and feel of the authoring tool (See Techniques for ATAG Checkpoint 7.2). [T0199]
• Allow authors to control both the nature and timing of the correction process. [T0200]
• Provide a mechanism for authors to navigate sequentially among uncorrected accessibility errors. [T0201]

ATAG Checkpoint 3.9 : Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status. [Priority 3]

Techniques:

• Provide a list of all accessibility errors found in a Web page. [T0207]
• Provide a summary of accessibility problems remaining by type and/or by number. [T0208]

Promote accessibility in help and documentation:

ATAG Checkpoint 3.10 : Document all features that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 1]

Techniques:

• Ensure that the help system can answer the following: "What features of the tool encourage the production of accessible content?" and "How are these features used?". [T0231]
• Link from help text to relevant automated correction utilities. [T0232]
• Link accessibility problem identifiers (i.e., icons, outlining or other emphasis within the user interface) to help files. [T0233]

ATAG Checkpoint 3.11: Document the process of using the tool to produce accessible content. [Relative Priority]

Techniques:

• Document the sequence of steps that the author should take, using the tool, in order to increase the liklihood of producing accessible content. This should take account of any idiosyncrasies of the tool. [T0436] @@How exactly should we handle the AERT?@@ @@new technique@@
• This documentation could be located in a dedicated section. [T0437] @@How exactly should we handle the AERT?@@@@new technique based on old checkpoint 6.3@@
• The dedicated section could be prefaced by an introduction that explains the importance of accessibility for a wide range of users, from those with disabilities to those with alternative viewers. [T0248]

Contents | Guideline 1 | Guideline 2 | Guideline 3 | Guideline 4 | Appendix A: Prompting | Glossary | References