Contents | Guideline 1 | Guideline 2 | Guideline 3 | Guideline 4 | Glossary @@now uses GL glossary@@ | References

W3C

Implementation Techniques for
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Guideline 3: Support the production of accessible content.

Working Group Draft 20 January 2004

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2004/WD-ATAG20-20040120/tier3
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/tier3
ATAG 1.0 Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10
Editors of this chapter:
Jutta Treviranus - ATRC, University of Toronto
Jan Richards - ATRC, University of Toronto
Matt May - W3C

Guiding the author to produce accessible content:

Promoting accessibility in help and documentation:


Guiding the author to produce accessible content:

Conformance with accessibility authoring practices is an authoring constraint, analogous to producing valid code or grammatical text. Since the role of any authoring tool is to facilitate satisfaction of authoring constraints, it is natural that accessibility-aware authoring tools should include features to facilitate the process of creating accessible content. The checkpoint requirements for this section include prompting and assisting the author to create accessible content, especially for information that cannot be generated automatically, such as descriptions of graphics (Checkpoint 3.1), checking for accessibility problems (Checkpoint 3.2), and assisting in the repair of accessibility problems (Checkpoint 3.3). [@@some edits here to bring back to GL's]

Implementation Note: All functions added to support accessible authoring should be flexible enough to take into account different authoring styles. When authors can configure accessibility features to support their regular work patterns, they will be more likely to feel comfortable with their use and be more receptive to interventions from the tool. For example, some authors may prefer to be alerted to accessibility problems when they occur, whereas others may prefer to perform a check at the end of an editing session.

ATAG Checkpoint 3.1: Prompt and assist the author to create accessible content. [Relative Priority]

Executive Summary: [@@this has all been modified@@]

In some authoring situations it may be necessary to prompt (see clarification) or assist (e.g. task automation, entry storage, etc.) authors to follow accessible authoring practices. This is especially true of accessibility problems that require human judgment to remedy, such as adding descriptions to images.

One approach to prompting and assisting the author to create accessible content is to allow problems to be created and then address them later as part of checking (checkpoint 3.2) and correcting (checkpoint 3.3). However, if the author is left uninformed of accessibility problems for too long, they may be overwhelmed by the full weight of the accumulated problems then when they are finally informed. It is, therefore, preferable to begin guiding the author towards the production of accessible content before accessibility problems have actually been introduced.

It is important to note that when information is required from the author, it is crucial that that information be correct and complete. This is most likely to occur if the author has been convinced to provide the information voluntarily. Therefore, overly restrictive mechanisms are not recommended for meeting this checkpoint.

Clarification: [@@all modified@@]

The term prompt in this checkpoint should not be interpreted as implying intrusive prompts, such as pop-up dialog boxes. Instead, ATAG 2.0 uses prompt in a wider sense, to mean any process of eliciting author input. This process should be:

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: When the actions of the author risk creating accessibility problems (e.g. image inserted, author typing invalid element into a code view, author initiating a page creation wizard, etc.), the tool must intervene to introduce the appropriate accessible authoring practice. This intervention may proceed according to a user-configurable schedule.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.1.1: Consider how much user configurability will be provided. User acceptance of the accessibility features of an authoring tool will likely depend on the degree to which these features can be integrated into authors' existing workflows. That is why the ATAG definition of "prompting" clearly states that: "the form and timing that this prompting takes can be user configurable". In other words, the author should be able to control to some extent how and when assistance in avoiding accessibility problems is rendered by the tool. This user configurablity will help reconcile the additional accessibility authoring tasks with the regular work pattern of the author. To achieve this, tools may offer the author a range of checking and prompting options (see Figure 3.1.1), including: [@@new@@]
  • which accessibility standards they wish to follow, and where applicable, to which level,
  • the degree to which the prompts are highlighted in the interface,
  • the nature of the accessibility guidance they wish to receive, and
  • the nature and timing of any automated accessibility features (e.g. accessibility checking or correcting utilities).
Figure 3.1.1: Example of an accessibility preferences dialog. [d]
Fig. 1: Accessibility options card.
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.1.2: How to prompt and assist for various types of information: [@@new@@]
 

Technique 3.1.2(1): Short text labels (e.g. Alternate text, Titles, Rubies for Ideograms): [@@changed@@]

  • (a) Since prompts for short text strings are usually intended to elicit entries of ten words or less, they can be afforded relatively little screen real estate.
  • (b) A preview of the image can be provided.
  • (c) The text control can include a drop-down list so that the author can either enter new text or choose from labels appropriate for objects serving special functions (e.g. "decorative", "button", "spacer", "horizontal rule", etc.).
  • (d) Short text labels are an good candidate for storage and reuse (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 4.4)
Figure 3.1.2(2): [d]
screen shot demonstrating prompting for short labels
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
 

Technique 3.1.2(2): Multiple text labels (e.g. image map area labels): [@@changed@@]

  • (a) Prompts for image map text labels can be similar to those for short text labels with allowance made for rapidly adding several labels for one image map.
  • (b) A preview of the image map areas can be provided.
  • (c) The URI of the image map areas can be provided.
  • (d) The tool can offer to automatically generate a set of plain text links from the labels.
Figure 3.1.2(2): [d]
screen shot demonstrating prompting for image map labels
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
 

Technique 3.1.2(3): Long text descriptions (e.g. Longdesc text, table summaries, site information): [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can first be prompted as to whether the inserted object is adequately described. Providing a "no images" view of the page may help them decide.
  • (b) If the short description is inadequate, the author can be prompted for the location of a pre-existing description.
  • (c) If the author needs to create a description, a special writing utility can be provided (that can include a preview of the object and description writing pointers).
  • (d) Long descriptions are an good candidate for storage and reuse (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 4.4)
Figure 3.1.2(3): [d]
screen shot demonstrating prompting for long descriptions
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
 

Technique 3.1.2(4): Form field place-holders: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) Prompts for form field place-holders can be similar to those for short text labels.
  • (b) Authors could have the option of directly selecting nearby text strings that are serving implicitly as labels.
  • (c) This can be included in a "form clean-up" utility.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(5): Accesskeys: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) Authors can be prompted with a list of links that are candidates for accesskeys because they are common to a number of pages in a site.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(6): List sub-groups: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) Where there are more than 10 choices in a list of form controls (that can be grouped), the user can be asked to identify subgroups.
  • (b) This can be included in a "form clean-up" utility.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(7): Form field labels: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) This can take the form of a utility that walks the user through the existing form fields and queries them to select existing text that is serving as a label or to enter a label.
  • (b) This can be included in a "form clean-up" utility.
[@@EXAMPLE@@]
 

Technique 3.1.2(8): TAB order definitions:[@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can be provided with a numbering tool that they can use to select controls to create a TAB preferred sequence.
  • (b) Where there are only a few links that change in each page of a collection, a tool can ask the author to confirm whether these links receive focus first. If so, then the tool can appropriately update the tabindex order.
  • (c) This can be included in a "form clean-up" utility.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(9): Contrasting colours: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) When a foreground or background color is defined the color choices provided to the author could be pre-screened for contrast.
  • (b) Color palettes can be assembled with problematic colors flagged.
[@@EXAMPLE@@]
 

Technique 3.1.2(10): Audio/video transcripts: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can be prompted for the location of a pre-existing transcript.
  • (b) Although transcript writing is a complex process for long media files, tools can include simple transcription writing suites, with built-in media players, for short media files.
  • (c) Transcripts are a good candidate for storage and reuse (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 4.4)
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(11): Audio/video captions: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can be prompted for the location of a captioned version of a video.
  • (b) The creation of captions can be a time consuming process, but public domain tools do exist for adding relatively simple captions (e.g., MAGpie).
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(12): Audio descriptions for video: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can be prompted for the location of a described version of a video.
  • (b) 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.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(13): Signed translation for audio/video : [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can be prompted for the location of a version of an audio or video file with signed translation.
  • (b) The creation of signed translation video files is assumed to be beyond the average author, but new technologies (signing avatars) are being developed for automated sign language animation to be generated from text.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(14): Still images of video: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can be prompted for the location of a still image.
  • (b) The tool can provide a utility for grabbing still images from video.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(15): Metadata: [@@changed, needs MUCH more@@]

  • (a) 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.
  • (b) Metadata retrieval standards can be supported.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(16): Document structure: [@@added and likely will include many more techs@@]

  • (a) The tool can offer to transform presentation markup that is misused to convey structure into structural markup, with style sheets used to retain the same appearance. [@@split and changed@@]
  • (b) 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 "-") can be used to automatically identify lists.
  • (c) Authors of DTDs or Schemas can be prompted to specify explicit structure (e.g. nesting)
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(17): Tabular structure: [@@added and likely will include many more techs@@]

  • (a) To tool can prompt the author to identify tables as used for layout or data or implement automated detection mechanisms.
  • (b) The author can be prompted to provide header information. @@PJ indicated he would work on this@@
  • (c) The author can be prompted to group columns, rows, or blocks of cells that are related. @@PJ indicated he would work on this@@
  • (d) The tool can provide the user with a linearized view of tables (as tablin does). For layout tables, this version can be offered as alternatives.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(18): Style sheets: [@@added and likely will include many more techs@@]

  • (a) The tool can offer to transform structural markup that is misused for style into style sheets. [@@changed@@]
  • (b) The tool can 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.
  • (c) The tool can provide a utility for editing the layout and styling effects independently of the text content.
  • (d) The author can be asked to identify headings and subheadings.
  • (e) Formatting patterns can be recognized and converted to style rules.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(19): Clearly written text: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The author can be prompted to specify a default language of a document.
  • (b) A thesaurus function can be provided.
  • (c) A dictionary lookup system can recognize changes of language, abbreviations or acronyms.
  • (d) Recognize collections of uppercase letters as likely acronyms (in languages that have case) and prompt the author for an expansion.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(20): Non-Text supplements to text: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) The tool can prompt authors to provide icons for buttons, illustrations for text, graphs for numeric comparisons, etc.
 
 

Technique 3.1.2(21): Other information: [@@changed@@]

  • (a) During applet development, the author can be prompted to include device-independent means of activation.
  • (b) Where regions are not easily defined, the author can be asked 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.
  • (c) The author can be asked to provide a link to skip over objects (since some browsers cause objects to permanently capture the tab focus). @@new category and T####@@@@proposed at F2F@@
  • (d) The author can be prompted 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.
  • (e) When frames used for a mosaic of images, the tool can allow inclusion of markup files (with images embedded) rather than images directly. @@new category and T####@@@@proposed at F2F@@
 
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Conversion tools technique

Technique 3.1.3: The tool can provide multiple preview modes and a warning to authors 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.). Some possible document views include: [@@changed@@]

  • an alternative content view (with images and other multimedia replace by any alternative content),
  • a draft (no style sheet) view,
  • a monochrome view (to test contrast),
  • a collapsible structure-only view,
  • no scripts view
   
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Conversion tools technique

 

  • HTML: table-based layout into CSS.
  • HTML: (deprecated) FONT into heuristically or author-determined structure. [T0214]
  • Word processor styles to Web styles.
  • HTML: deprecated presentational markup into CSS.
  • XHTML: span into ruby.
  • MathML: presentational markup to semantic markup.

 

Markup tools technique Content tools technique Technique ???: Assist the author by implementing XSLT [XSLT] together with a user interface for expressing transformations (see Techniques for ATAG checkpoint 2.1). [@@is this really necessary@@]
Markup tools technique Technique ???: Transform (deprecated) presentation HTML into style sheets. @@from ATAG1 4.5@@
Markup tools technique Technique ???: Provide an outline view that lets the author clearly see the structure of the document independently of the specified presentation. @@new category and T####@@
  Technique ???: Include lists (marked as lists) in a collapsible structure view.
  Technique ???: Prompt for alternative content for applets and programmatic objects. [T0145] [@@covered by labels and descriptions?@@]
  Technique ???: Prompt the author for a longdesc for each frame in a frameset. [@@covered: should be deleted@@]
Technique ???: Use technologies according to specification.- This is likely to be handled by the choices made by the tool developers. General-purpose text editors (e.g. emacs, etc.) would need to make technology selection recommendations. [@@needs to be moved out of here@@]
  Technique ???: Prompt for server-side alternatives for essential client-side scripts (those used for content and navigation) and applets.
 
Techniques for Success Criteria 2: The intervention must occur at least once before completion of authoring (e.g. final save, publishing, etc.).

[@@Techniques needed@@]

Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.1.1:
 
   
   

 

ATAG Checkpoint 3.2: Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Relative Priority]

Executive Summary:

Despite prompting assistance from the tool (see Checkpoint 3.1), accessibility problems may still be introduced. For example, the author may cause accessibility problems during hand coding or content with existing accessibility problems may be opened for editing. In these cases, the prompting and assistance mechanisms that operate when markup is added or edited (i.e. insertion dialogs and property windows) must be backed up by a more general checking system that can detect and alert the author to problems anywhere within the content (attribute, element, programmatic object, etc.). It is preferable that this checking mechanisms be well integrated with correction mechanisms (see Checkpoint 3.3), so that when the checking system detects a problem and informs the author, the tool can also help the author address the issue.

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The tool must provide a check ( automated check, semi-automated check or manual check) for detecting violations of each requirement of WCAG.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique

Technique 3.2.1: Consider the level of automation to be used for checking (and informing). Options include: [@@new@@]

1. Manual (not automated): The tool provides the author with instructions for detecting a problem, but does not automate the task of detecting the problem in any meaningful way. As a result, the author must follow the instructions and make the determination that a problem exists by themselves. This type of check is discouraged since it can be annoying for the author, especially when the type of problem in question may be easily detected by a more automated utility (e.g. an element missing a particular attribute).

Figure 3.2.1(a): Example of a manual check. [d]
Example of a manual check
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
2. Semi-Automated: The tool is able to identify potential problems, but still requires a human judgment by the author to make a final appraisal. This type of check is usually most appropriate for semantic-type problems, such as descriptions of non-text objects, as opposed to purely syntactic problems, such as missing attributes, which lend themselves more readily to automation.
Figure: 3.2.1(b): Example of a semi-automated check. [d]
Example of a semi-automated check
(Source: mockup by AUWG) @@fix image text@@
3. Automated: The tool is able to check for accessibility problems automatically, with no human intervention required. This type of check is usually appropriate for syntactic-type checks, such as the use of deprecated elements or a missing attribute, in which the meaning of text does not play a role.
Figure: 3.2.1(c),(d): Examples of a fully automated check. [d]
Example of a fully automated checkScreenshot of code view with font color accessibility highlighting
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.2: Consider the timing options to be used for informing the author of the results of the check. Options include: [@@new@@]

1. Immediate Interruption: An immediate interruption is the most intrusive timing option because the author's attention is actively diverted from the current editing task by the notification of some issue. This might be achieved, for instance, by an alert dialog. This type of alert presents multiple usability problems, and should be used sparingly because it interferes with the normal design workflow. Intrusive warnings are probably only appropriate when the window of opportunity for correcting a serious accessibility problem is about to close. An example of this might be when an author is publishing a document to their site. In general, we recommend using the less disruptive timing options.

Figure 3.2.2(a): Example of a dialog box making an immediate interruption. [d]
Screenshot of accessibility alert dialog
(Source: mockup by AUWG)

2. Configured Interruption (Preferred): A negotiated interruption is caused by interface mechanisms (icons, line or color highlighting of the element, audio feedback, etc.) that alert the author to a problem, but are flexible as to whether the author should take immediate action or address the issue at a later stage in the design process. This type of unintrusive alert can be better integrated into the design workflow. For example, a colored outline might be drawn around offending objects in a WYSIWYG view (see Figure 3.2.5), while the markup text for the same object might be highlighted by a different font color in the code view (see Figure 3.2.6). Besides being unintrusive, such indicators will have the added benefit of informing the author about the distribution of errors within the document without interrupting their editing process.Of course, some authors may choose to ignore the alerts completely. In this case, the AUWG does not recommend forcing the author to fix the problem. Instead, it recommends that, at some major editing event (e.g., when publishing), the tool should remind the author of the continuing unresolved accessibility issues.

Figure 3.2.2(b),(c): Examples of highlighting. [d] [d]
Screenshot of code view with font color accessibility highlightingScreenshot of WYSIWYG view with outline highlighting and pop-up men of correction options
(Source: mockup by AUWG)

3. Scheduled Interruption: A scheduled interruption is one in which the author has set the tool to alert them of accessibility issues on a configurable schedule. One option for the schedule might be to have prompts associated with the interface mechanisms for significant authoring events such as saving, exiting, publishing, printing, etc. At the significant authoring event, the author would be informed of the problem, while at the same time they would not be prevented from saving, publishing, printing, etc. For example, a "save as" dialog could display an accessibility warning and an option to launch a correction utility after saving (see Figure 3.2.7). A potential downside of this type of prompting is that by the time the prompt is displayed (publishing, etc.), the author may not have time to make the required changes, especially if they are extensive.

Figure 3.2.2(d): Example of a scheduled prompt included at the bottom of a "save as" dialog. [d]
Screenshot of save as dialog with warning message
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.3: See AERT document for evaluation and repair algorithms. 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].
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.4: 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.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.5: Alert authors to accessibility problems when saving.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.6: 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)
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.7: Where the tools cannot test for accessibility errors, provide the author with the necessary information, wizards, etc. to check for themselves.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.8: Include alerts for WCAG Priority 1 checkpoints in the default configuration.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.9: 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.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.10: Allow authors to choose different alert levels based on the priority of authoring accessibility recommendations.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.11: If intrusive warnings are used, provide a means for the author to quickly set the warning to non-obtrusive to avoid frustration.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.2.12: The WAI Evaluation and Repair group [WAI-ER] has produced a Public Working Draft of techniques for evaluating and repairing HTML according to WCAG 1.0 [AERT].

 

ATAG Checkpoint 3.3: Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. [Relative Priority]

Executive Summary:

Once a problem has been detected by the author or, preferably, the tool (see Checkpoint 3.2), the tool may assist the author to correct the problem. As with accessibility checking, the extent to which accessibility correction can be automated depends on the nature of the particular problems. Some repairs are easily automated, whereas others that require human judgment may be semi-automated at best.

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The tool must provide a repair (automated repair, semi-automated repair or manual repair) for correcting violations of each requirement of WCAG.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.3.1: Consider the level of automation to be used for correction. Options include: [@@new@@]

1. Manual: The tool provides the author with instructions for making the necessary repair, but does not automate the task in any meaningful way (e.g. the tool may move the cursor to start of the problem and still be considered "manual"). Manual correction tools leave it up to the author to follow the instructions and make the repair by themselves. This is the most time consuming option for users and allows the most opportunity for user error.

Figure 3.3.1(a): Example of a manual repair.
This tool has detected the problem, selected the offending element in a code view and provided a hint for repairing it - but the user must still make the actual repair. [d]
Screenshot of code view with font color accessibility highlighting
(Source: mockup by AUWG)

2. Semi-Automated: For some types of problems, tool can provide some automated assistance to the user in performing corrections, but the author's input is still required. For example, the tool may prompt the user for a plain text string, but then be capable of handling all the markup required to add the text string to the content. In other cases, the tool may be able to narrow the choice of repair options, but still rely on the author to make the final selection.

Figure 3.3.1(b): Example of a semi-automated repair in a WYSIWYG editor. The user has right-clicked on a highlighted object. The user must then decide whether the suggested "alt" text is appropriate. If the user decides that it is, the tool handles the details of updating the markup. [d]
Screenshot of WYSIWYG view with outline highlighting and pop-up men of correction options
(Source: mockup by AUWG)

3. Automated: For some types of problems, tools may be is able to make repairs automatically. For example, in cases where the user wishes to strip out every instance of specific element. In these cases, very little, if any, user interface is required.

Figure 3.3.1(c): Automated repair. Since an automated repair might be completed with the user interface, here is an example of an announcement that might follow an automated repair. [d]
Screenshot of a pop-up dialog explaining the blink and marquee elements have been re-styled
(Source: mockup by AUWG)
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.3.2: Consider implementing a special-purpose correcting interface. [@@new@@]When problems require some human judgment, the simplest solution is often to display the property editing mechanism for the offending element. This has the advantage that the user is already somewhat familiar with the interface. However, this practice suffers from the drawback that it does not necessarily focus the author's attention on the dialog control(s) that are relevant to the required correction. Another option is to display a special-purpose correction utility (see example) that includes only the input field(s) for the information currently required. The advantage of this approach is that additional information and tips that the author may require in order to properly provide the requested information can be easily added. Notice that in the figure, a drop-down edit box has been used for the alt-text field. This technique might be used to allow the author to select from text strings used previously for the alt-text of this image (see ATAG Checkpoint 3.5 for more).
Figure 3.3.2: Example of special-purpose correction interface. [d]
Screenshot of contrived accessibility prompting checker
(Source: mockup by AUWG based on A-Prompt)
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.3.3: Decide whether to provide sequential checking or real-time (live) checking, or both:
1. Sequential Checking: In cases where there are likely to be many accessibility problems, it may be useful to implement a checking utility that presents accessibility problems and repair options in a sequential manner. This may take the a form similar to a configuration wizard or a spell checker (see Figure 3.3.5). In the case of a wizard, a complex interaction is broken down into a series of simple sequential steps the user can complete one at a time. The later steps can then be updated on the fly to take into account the information provided by the user in earlier steps. A checker is a special case of a wizard in which the number of detected errors determines the number of steps. For example, word processors usually have checkers that display all the spelling problems one at a time in a standard template with places for the misspelled word, a list of suggested words, and the correct word. The user also has correcting options, some of which can store responses to affect how the same situation is handled later. In an accessibility problem checker, sequential prompting is an efficient way of correcting problems. However, because of the wide range of problems the checker needs to handle (i.e. missing text, missing structural information, improper use of color, etc.), the interface template will need to be even more flexible than that of a spell checker. Nevertheless, the template is still likely to include areas for identifying the problem (WYSIWYG or markup-based according to the target audience of the tool), suggesting multiple solutions and choosing between or creating new solutions. In addition, the dialog may include context-sensitive instructive text to help the author with the current correction.
Figure 3.3.3(a): Example of a sequential accessibility checker that incorporates the special-purpose correction interface from Figure 3.3.2. [d]
Screenshot of contrived accessibility prompting checker
(Source: mockup by AUWG based on A-Prompt)
 
 
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique

Technique 3.3.4: When authoring tools produce content in real-time, the luxury of prompting on a user configurable schedule is to a large degree lost. At the same time, due to the time pressure, authors in real-time environments tend to be less receptive to intrusive prompts. Nevertheless, tools that allow this kind of authoring (see Figure 3.3.6) should still take accessibility issues into account by supporting the following:

  • Determination of Participant Requirements: If a real-time communication takes place between individuals with no special communicative needs, there may be no need for real-time prompting. However, the author may not personally know all the special communicative needs of the participants (even if the author knows everyone personally). The tool might be able to facilitate a decision about whether supplements need to be provided by asking participants which types of supplemental material they wish to have made available (see "Request whiteboard descriptions" checkbox in the figure). and then prompt the author (or see Assistant Author) to provide these (preferably during Preparation Time). In cases when it is not possible to know the needs of everyone participating in a communication, the tool should assume there are unidentified users with disabilities. Moreover, even if there are no individuals with special communicative needs participating in the original real-time communication, if the communication is archived there will always be a possibility that future users will experience accessibility problems with the material. Therefore, even when it has been determined that the original communication does not require supplements, if the author chooses to archive the communication, the authoring tool should guide the author through a configurable interruption process to check for and repair accessibility problems after the real-time session has ended, but prior to archiving.
  • Assistant Author: In some cases, it may be possible to designate a secondary author in the live community, who can receive and respond to the intrusive prompts for supplemental information generated as the primary author proceeds uninterrupted. The secondary author might be an unrelated specialist, analogous to Sign language interpreter, or a co-author (helpful for describing technical drawings, etc.).
  • Preparation Time: If the authoring tool allows the author time to pre-assemble materials for a live presentation (e.g. a professor preparing for an online class), this authoring is not considered real-time authoring. The authoring tool has the opportunity to provide both intrusive and unintrusive prompts and alerts as described elsewhere in this document. For example, when the professor imports an image to be used in her lecture, she could be prompted to provide an alternative representation of that image.

If it has been determined that the author must provide real-time supplements, but no preparation time or assistant author are available, then in addition to allowing the author control of the nature and timing of prompting, the authoring tool can facilitate the inclusion of supplements by:

  • Implementing the equivalent alternatives management functionality (see Checkpoint 3.5). This way, if the author uses an object that has been used before, the tool can suggest the previously stored alternative, which the author can quickly accept or decline without substantial workflow disruption.
  • Providing a voice recognition capability so that the author's real-time speech input can be converted into captioning.
Figure 3.3.6: Real-time presentation in a Whiteboard/Chat environment. Notice the functionality for requesting
whiteboard descriptions, volunteering to be the secondary author (describer), and describing a whiteboard object even as the dialog continues. [d]
Screenshot of contrived whiteboard/chat tool with whiteboard description prompting
(Source: mockup by AUWG).
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Technique 3.3.5: At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the accessibility checking required by ATAG Checkpoint 3.2.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.3.6: Where a tool is able to detect site-wide errors, allow the author to make site-wide corrections. This should not be used equivalents alternatives when the function is not known with certainty (see ATAG Checkpoint 3.4). [@@changed@@]
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.3.7: Assist authors in ways that are consistent with the look and feel of the authoring tool (See Techniques for ATAG Checkpoint ?.?).
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.3.8: Allow authors to configuration the nature and timing of the correction process.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.3.9: Provide a mechanism for authors to navigate sequentially among uncorrected accessibility errors.
  Technique 3.3.10: The WAI Evaluation and Repair group [WAI-ER] has produced a Public Working Draft of techniques for evaluating and repairing HTML according to WCAG 1.0 [AERT].

 

ATAG Checkpoint 3.4: 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 for Success Criteria 1: When the author inserts an unrecognized non-text object, the tool must not insert an automatically generated text equivalent (e.g. label generated from the file name).
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.4.1: 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).
Techniques for Success Criteria 2: When the author inserts a non-text object for which the tool has a previously authored equivalent (i.e. created by the author, tool designer, pre-authored content developer, etc.), but the function of the object is not known with certainty, the tool must prompt the author to confirm insertion of the equivalent. However, where the function of the non-text object is known with certainty (e.g. "home button" on a navigation bar, etc.), the tool may automatically insert the equivalent.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.4.2: 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.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.4.3: 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.

 

ATAG Checkpoint 3.5: 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 2.0 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 3.1, ATAG checkpoint 3.2, and ATAG checkpoint 3.3) and improve the usability of the tool.

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: When non-text objects have been previously inserted using the tool, the tool must suggest any previously authored textual equivalents for that non-text object.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.5.1: 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 ATAG Checkpoint 3.1) 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.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.5.2: 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 3.4 because the equivalent alternatives are not automatically generated and they are only reused with author confirmation.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.5.3: 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 3.4. 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.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.5.4: 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.
  Technique 3.5.5: 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]).

 

ATAG Checkpoint 3.6 : Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status. [Priority 3]

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The tool must provide the author with an option to view a listing of all current accessibility problems.
Markup tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.6.1: Provide a list of all accessibility errors found in a Web page.
Markup tools technique Content tools technique Technique 3.6.2: Provide a summary of accessibility problems remaining by type and/or by number.

 


Promoting accessibility in help and documentation:

Because authors are likely to differ widely in their familiarity with Web content accessibility issues, the help and documentation of the authoring tool must address several types of use. The checkpoint requirements for this section include documenting accessible content promoting features (Checkpoint 3.7), ensuring that accessibility solutions are modeled in the documentation and help(Checkpoint 3.8), and including suggested workflow instructions for using the tool to produce accessible content (Checkpoint 3.9).

ATAG Checkpoint 3.7 : Document all features that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 1]

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: All features that play a role in creating accessible content must be documented in the help system.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.7.1: Ensure that the help system can answer the following questions: "What features of the tool encourage the production of accessible content?" and "How are these features operated?".
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.7.2: Provide direct links from the features to context sensitive help on how to operate the features. (i.e., the link might originate with icons, outlining or other emphasis within the user interface).
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.7.3: Provide links from within the help text to relevant automated correction utilities.

 

ATAG Checkpoint 3.8: Ensure that accessibility is modeled in all documentation and help, including examples. [Priority 2]

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: All examples of markup code and views of the user interface (dialog screenshots, etc.) must meet the requirements of WCAG, regardless of whether the examples are intended to demonstrate accessibility authoring practices.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.1: In the documentation, ensure that all code examples pass the accessibility checking mechanism required for checkpoint 3.1, regardless of what aspect of the code, the example is meant to show.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.2: In the documentation, provide at least one model of each accessibility practice in the relevant WCAG techniques document for each language supported by the tool. Note: This includes all levels of accessibility practices, not just Level 1 or 2.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.3: When the help files of a base tool do not meet this checkpoint, an accessibility plug-ins that updates the files is acceptable.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.4: When explaining the accessibility issues related to elements that have not been officially deprecated, try to emphasize the solutions rather than explicitly discouraging the use of the element.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.6: For tools that include context sensitive help, implement context-sensitive help for accessibility terms as well as tasks related to accessibility.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.7: For tools that include tutorials, provide a tutorial on checking for and correcting Web accessibility problems.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.8: Include pointers to more information on accessible Web authoring, such as WCAG and other accessibility-related resources,
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.8.9: Include current versions of, or links to relevant language specifications in the documentation. This is particularly relevant for languages that are easily hand edited, such as most XML languages.

 

ATAG Checkpoint 3.9: Document the workflow process of using the tool to produce accessible content. [Priority 3] [@@ed. The term "workflow" still needs definition.@@]

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The documentation must contain suggested content creation workflow descriptions that include how and when to use the accessibility-related features of the tool.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.9.1: Document the sequence of steps that the author should take, using the tool, in order to increase the likelihood of producing accessible content. This should take account of any idiosyncrasies of the tool.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.9.2: The 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.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.9.3: For tools that explain the reasons for accessibility, take a broad view. For example, do not refer to any particular accessibility feature as being "for blind authors" or label them with a "disability" icon. Instead, refer to them as being for "authors who are not viewing images". Consider emphasizing points in "Auxiliary Benefits of Accessibility Features", a W3C-WAI resource.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.9.4: This documentation could be located in a dedicated section.
Techniques for Success Criteria 2: For tools that lack a particular accessibility-related feature, the workflow description must include a workaround for that feature.
Markup tools technique Multimedia tools technique Content tools technique Programming tools technique Technique 3.9.5: Tools that lack an accessibility checking and/or repair feature may point to the relevant WCAG Techniques document for the language. Note: this will not suffice to meet the checkpoints related to accessibility checking (ATAG Checkpoint 3.1) and repair (ATAG Checkpoint 3.2).

 


Contents | Guideline 1 | Guideline 2 | Guideline 3 | Guideline 4 | Glossary | References