Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel":

• Techniques for checkpoint 4.1 Ensure that the most accessible option for an authoring task is given priority. [Priority 1]
• Techniques for checkpoint 4.2: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are always clearly available to the author [Priority 1]
• Techniques for checkpoint 4.3: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are well integrated into the tool workflow. [Priority 2]
• Techniques for checkpoint 4.4: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are naturally integrated into appearance and interactive style of the tool. [Priority 2 or 3@@]

Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel"

ATAG Checkpoint 4.1: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are always clearly available to the author. [Priority 1]

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: When a tool provides a means for markup to be added with a single mouse click or keystroke, that markup must meet the requirements of WCAG unless the markup was authored "by hand".

Technique 4.1.1: Styling toolbar buttons can be implemented with stylesheets. [@@new@@]

Techniques for Success Criteria 2: When an authoring action has several markup implementations (e.g. changing the color of text with presentation markup or style sheets), those markup implementation(s) that meet the requirements of WCAG must be equal to or higher on all of the following scales than those markup implementations that do not meet the WCAG requirements: [a] Prominence of location (in "power tools" such as floating menus, toolbars, etc.) , [b] Position in layout (top to bottom and left to right in menus, dialog boxes, etc. ), [c] Size of control (measured as screen area), [d] Actions to activate (number of mouse clicks or keystrokes)

	Technique 4.1.2: Modified Input Field Order: ATAG 2.0 contains ATAG Checkpoint 5.2 does not require that accessibility related controls either obscure or hinder other controls. Instead, the checkpoint emphasizes that these controls should be allotted a screen presence that is appropriate for their importance. For example, some tools have floating properties bars that display input fields appropriate to the currently selected element (see Figure 3.1.2). The relative importance of a property can be communicated to the author in several ways. (Applies to [b]) [@@changed slightly@@] Reading Order: Without any other forms of organization, most people will read interface items in a "localized" reading order (i.e. in English, French, etc. this is left to right and top to bottom). The higher visibility of items that occur early in the reading order confers higher apparent importance. Grouping: Grouping input fields can change the reading order and the related judgments of importance. For example, the "H" field in the figure below, rises in the reading order due to a strong grouping with the "W" field. Advanced Options: When the properties are explicitly or implicitly grouped into sets of basic and advanced properties, the basic properties will gain apparent importance. For example, in the figure, below, the fact that the "alt" field appears in the default properties, rather than the collapsible portion of the properties bar confers visibility and apparent importance.
	Figure 4.1.2: Example of a floating properties bar (top: maximized, bottom: minimized). [d] (Source: Macromedia Dreamweaver 2.0)
	Technique 4.1.3: Input Field Highlighting: Visibility of input fields related to accessibility may be further enhanced by visual highlighting. For example, the fields may be distinguished from others using icons (see Figure A-3), color (see Figure A-4), underlining, etc. When these methods are used, it is important to ensure that that they are consistent with the overall look and feel of the authoring tool interface (as per ATAG Checkpoint 5.1). For example, if an authoring tool uses an icon in the shape of a black dot to denote the required field, this convention might be extended so that a red dot is used to denote the accessibility-related fields. An additional consideration is that in order to meet ATAG Checkpoint 7.1, the highlighting must be implemented so that it is available through APIs, allowing an author with disabilities to access the highlighting through assistive devices (MSAA, Java Accessibility API, GNOME accessibility).
	Figure 4.1.3(a): Input field highlighting with colored input field. [d] (Source: mockup by AUWG) Figure 4.1.3(b): Input field highlighting with an iconic reference to a note. [d] (Source: mockup by AUWG)
	Technique 4.1.4: Grouping Related Input Fields: In some cases, several input fields are required to be completed in order to make a single element accessible. Instead of dispersing these prompts over multiple dialog boxes, it may be more effective to draw them together into one group of controls with a visible tab or other method for accessing the group (see Figure A-5). This can have the additional benefit of allowing accessibility-related help information to be provided without confusion (see "Quick Tips" in the figure, below). The downside of placing all the accessibility related input fields in the same area is that all of them will be neglected if the author does not see the grouping.
	Figure 4.2.4: Accessibility tab on the input element properties dialog. [d] (Source:mockup by AUWG)
	If there is more than one option for the author, and one option is more accessible than another, place the more accessible option first and make it the default. For example, when the author has selected text to format, the use of CSS should be emphasized rather than deprecated FONT element.
	Highlight the most accessible authoring solutions or templates when presenting choices for the author.

ATAG Checkpoint 4.2: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are always clearly available to the author. [Priority 1]

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: Continuously active processes (e.g. a checker that underlines errors as they occur, a checker that activates at a save, a checker that activates every 10 minutes, etc.) that implement functions required by checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7 must be enabled by default.

Techniques for Success Criteria 2: If the author chooses to disable these continuously active processes, then the tool must inform the author of the consequences of their choice.

Techniques for Success Criteria 3: User-initiated processes (e.g. a checker that the user requests each time) that implement functions required by checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7 must be available to the author at *all times during authoring* with no more steps than other *high-priority functions*.

Techniques for Success Criteria 4: When the functions required by checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7 are combined with other authoring functions (e.g. an accessibility-related field in a general purpose dialog box), the resulting design must include all accessibility-related functions in the top level of the combined user interface.

ATAG Checkpoint 4.3: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are well integrated into the tool workflow. [Priority 2]

@@No Success Criteria yet.@@

ATAG Checkpoint 4.4: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are naturally integrated into appearance and interactive style of the tool. [Priority 2 or 3@@]

Techniques: The mechanisms for accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation must be similar to comparable mechanisms in terms the following characteristics: [a] visual design (design metaphors, artistic sophistication, sizes, fonts, colors), [b] operation (degree of automation, number of actions for activation, [c] configurability (number and types of features.

	Technique 4.4.1: The prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation features can be designed with the same fonts, text sizes, colors, symbols, etc. that characterize other program features. (Applies to [a]) [@@changed slightly@@]
	Technique 4.4.2: Ensure that author can utilize the tool's accessible authoring features by the same interaction styles used for other features in the program. For example, if the tool makes use of onscreen symbols such as underlines or coloration change rather than dialogs for conveying information, then the same interface techniques should be used to convey accessibility information. (Applies to [a], [b]) [@@changed slightly@@]
	Technique 4.4.3: Provide a common toolkit to design tool functionality modules. This can be used by third party developers to develop accessibility plug-in with the same look and feel as other parts of the tool. (Applies to parts [a], [b], [c]) [@@changed slightly@@]
	Technique 4.4.4: The accessibility features should be designed as integral components of the authoring tool application, not components that need to be separately executed. (Applies to [b])
	Technique 4.4.5: Include considerations for accessibility, such as short text label and long description attributes, on the same dialog as the source attribute, rather than buried behind an "Advanced..." button. (Applies to [b])
	Technique 4.4.6: Allow efficient and fast access to accessibility-related settings with as few steps as possible needed to make any changes that will generate accessible content. (Applies to [b])
	The default settings of the authoring tool should include all accessible content production features enabled (as opposed to accessibility features for the author). The author may have the option to disable these features later on. [@@covered in 4.2@@]

• Provide a consistent look and feel, but not to the point that product differentiation and improved accessibility functionality are compromised:
• There should be seamless integration of the accessibility functions into the workflow model of the base tool:

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