[Contents] [Techniques] [Checklist]
This specification provides guidelines for designing Web content authoring
tools that are more accessible for people with disabilities. An authoring
tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by providing
an accessible user interface to authors with disabilities as well as enabling,
supporting, and promoting the production of accessible Web content by all
authors.
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (ATAG 2.0)
is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web
Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its
publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current
W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be
found in the W3C technical reports index at
http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This is an internal Editor's Draft.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership.
This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other
than work in progress.
The Working Group (AUWG) intends
to publish ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Recommendation. Until that time Authoring
Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (ATAG 1.0) [ATAG10] is
the stable, referenceable version. This Working Draft does not supersede
ATAG 1.0.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5
February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public
list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables
of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent.
An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual
believes contains Essential
Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section
6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web
Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the AUWG are discussed
in the Working Group charter.
The AUWG is part of the WAI
Technical Activity.
This section is informative, except where
noted.
You are reading the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version
2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting authoring
tool developers to make their tools (and the Web
content that the tools generate) more accessible to all people, especially
people with disabilities, who may potentially be either authors or end
users or both. These guidelines have been written to address the requirements
of many different audiences, including, but not limited to:
- authoring tool developers,
- authoring tool users (authors),
- authoring tool purchasers, and
- policy makers.
- technical administrators,
- and those who develop or manage content.
An attempt has been made to make this document as readable and usable as
possible for that diverse audience, while still retaining the accuracy and
clarity needed in a technical specification.
ATAG 2.0 is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The relationship between these documents
is explained in "Essential Components of Web Accessibility" [COMPONENTS].
This ATAG
2.0 document itself consists of:
- this introduction,
- information about conformance,
- the guidelines with normative success criteria,
- links to a separate non-normative document, entitled "Techniques
for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" [ATAG20-TECHS] (the "Techniques
document" from here on), that provide sufficient and advisory techniques
for how each success criteria might be satisfied, (Note: These techniques
are informative examples only, and other strategies may be used or required
to satisfy the success criteria),
- appendices containing references, a glossary,
a checklist and a document comparing
the guidelines in ATAG 1.0 to those in this document (ATAG 2.0).
Definition of authoring
tool
This section is normative.
ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any software, or collection
of software components, that authors use
to create or modify Web
content @@check WCAG defn@@ for
publication.
The following categories are an informative illustration of the range of
tools covered by ATAG 2.0. The categories are used primarily in the Techniques
document [ATAG20-TECHS] to
mark examples that may be of interest to developers of particular types of
tools. Note: Many authoring tools include authoring functions from more than
one category (e.g., an HTML editor with both code-level and WYSIWYG editing
views):
-
Code-level
Authoring Functions: Authors have full control over all aspects
of the resulting Web content that have bearing on the final outcome.
This covers, but is not limited to plain text editing, as this category
also covers the manipulation of symbolic representations that are sufficiently
fine-grained to allow authors the same freedom of control as plain
text editing (e.g., graphical tag placeholders).
Examples: text
editors, text editors enhanced with graphical tags, some wikis, etc.
-
-
Object
Oriented Authoring Functions: Authors have control over functional
abstractions of the low level aspects of the resulting Web content.
Examples: timelines,
waveforms, vector-based graphic editors, objects which represent web
implementations for graphical widgets (e.g., menu widgets) etc.
-
Indirect
Authoring Functions: Authors have control over only high-level
parameters related to the automated production of the resulting Web
content. This may include interfaces that assist the author to create
and organize Web content without authors having control over the markup,
structure, or programming implementation.
Examples: content
management systems, site building wizards, site management tools, courseware,
blogging tools, content aggregators, conversion tools, model-based
authoring tools, etc.
@@JR: what if we changed
this to "Dialog-level" editing? Guided?@@
The guiding principle of ATAG 2.0 is that:
Everyone should have the ability to create and access Web content.
Authoring tools play a crucial role in achieving this principle because
the accessibility of the tool's authoring
tool user interface determines who can access the tool as a Web content author (see Part
A of the guidelines) and the accessibility of the resulting Web
content determines who can be an end
user of that Web content (see Part
B of the guidelines).
The approach taken to the production of accessible content in these guidelines
is one of enabling, supporting, and guiding the author. In general, the Working
Group does not believe that enforcing particular author behavior through
overly restrictive mechanisms is a workable solution.
As an introduction to accessible authoring tool design, consider that the
authors and end users of Web content may be using the tool and its output
in contexts that are very different from that which may be regarded as typical.
For example, authors and end users may
- not be able to see, hear, move, or be able to process some types of information
easily or at all;
- have difficulty reading or comprehending text;
- not have or be able to use a keyboard or mouse;
- have a text-only display, or a small screen.
For more information, see "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" [PWD-USE-WEB].
In addition, following the guidelines provides benefits for authors and
end users beyond those listed in these various disability-related contexts.
For example, a person may have average hearing, but still require captions
for audio information due to a noisy workplace. Similarly, a person working
in an eyes-busy environment may require an audio alternative to information
they cannot view.
Also consider that authors may not be familiar with the specific needs of
people with disabilities and will require support from the authoring tool
to fill the knowledge gap. @@work this in a bit
better@@
Relationship
to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
At the time of publication, version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation [WCAG10],
and a second version of the guidelines is under development [WCAG20].
Note that the two versions have somewhat different Conformance Models.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is the
W3C-WAI Recommendation that defines requirements for making Web content accessible
to a wide range of people with disabilities. ATAG 2.0 includes a Web
Content Accessibility "Benchmark" section that refers to WCAG
as the guideline for judging the accessibility of Web
content (see the term "Accessible
Web Content") and any Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality
(see the term "Accessible
Authoring Tool User Interface").
Note that the references to WCAG are made without an associated
version number. This has been done to allow developers to select,
and record in the conformance profile, whichever
version of WCAG is most appropriate for the circumstances of a given authoring
tool. Consider the following when deciding which
WCAG version to use:
- The latest version of WCAG will be the most accurate with respect to
state-of-the-art technologies and accessibility best practices. Older versions
of WCAG may include requirements that are no longer necessary, due to advances
in user agent technology.
- The versions of WCAG differ with respect to the formats
for which there are published WCAG technique documents. This is important
because ATAG 2.0 requires published Web Content
Accessibility "Benchmark" documents, which may be based on
WCAG technique documents, if they are available.
- The versions of WCAG differ in the degree to which they match the legislation
and policies that drive author requirements. Many authors will be seeking
to use authoring tools to create Web content that meets legislation, corporate
policies, etc. It is likely that as WCAG progresses, so too will legislation
and policies, albeit at an uneven pace. Authoring tool developers may,
therefore, consider supporting both versions of WCAG in
the interim.
ATAG 2.0 Guidelines
This section is normative.
How the guidelines
are organized
The guidelines are divided into two parts, each reflecting a key aspect
of accessible authoring tools. Part A includes
principles and associated guidelines that are related to ensuring accessibility
of the authoring
tool user interface. Part B contains
principles and guidelines related to ensuring support for creation of accessible
Web content by the tool. The principles in both parts include the following:
- The principle number.
- The principle title.
- An explanation of the principle.
- A list of guidelines for the principle.
Each guideline listed under a principle is intended to be specific enough
to be verifiable, while still allowing developers the freedom to meet the
guideline in a way that is suitable for their own authoring tools. Each
guideline definition includes the following parts. Some parts are normative (i.e.,
relate to conformance), while others are informative only:
Conformance
This section is normative.
Conformance means that the authoring
tool satisfies the success criteria defined in the guidelines section.
This section outlines the conformance scheme used throughout this document.
Conformance Levels
Authoring tools may claim full conformance
to ATAG 2.0 at one of three conformance levels. The level achieved depends
on the level of the success
crieteria that have been satisfied. The full conformance
levels are:
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the Level 1 success criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Double-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the Level 1 and Level
2 success criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Triple-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the success criteria.
In addition, a Partial Conformance claim option is available
in cases where an authoring tool has satisfied all of the success criteria
at a specified level in one of the two Parts of the document (i.e. "Part
A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible" and "Part
B: Support the production of accessible content"). The partial
conformance levels are:
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A":
Authoring Tool User Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
1 success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A":
Authoring Tool User Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
1 and Level 2 success criteria in Part A. Nothing
is claimed about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A":
Authoring Tool User Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria
in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A":
Content Production"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
1 success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A":
Content Production"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
1 and Level 2 success criteria in Part B. Nothing
is claimed about Part A.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A":
Content Production"
The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria
in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
Note: The Working Group remains committed
to the guiding principle that: "Everyone should
have the ability to create and access Web content". Therefore, it is
recommended that Partial Conformance be claimed as a step towards full conformance.
Success Criteria
Each
success criteria is assigned one of three (3) levels.
- Level 1:
- For success criteria in Part A:
- These success criteria achieve accessibility by supporting assistive
technology while putting the fewest possible limits on tool design.
Thus people with a wide range of disabilities using a wide range
of assistive technologies, from voice input and eye-tracking devices
to screen readers and screen magnifiers, are able to access tools
in different ways.
- For success criteria in Part B:
- Level 2:
- For success criteria in Part A:
- These success criteria provide additional support for assistive
technology. At the same time, they also support more direct access
to content by the many people who use authoring tools
without assistive technology. In general, Level 2 success criteria
place more limits on tool design than the success criteria in Level
1.
- For success criteria in Part B:
- Level 3:
- For success criteria in Part A:
- These success criteria increase both direct access and access
through assistive technology. They place even tighter limits on
tool design.
- For success criteria in Part B:
(If a guideline success criterion is not applicable
to an authoring tool, then that success criterion is treated as met for
conformance purposes as long as a rartionale is provided.)
Web
Content Accessibility "Benchmark" Document
The purpose of the Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" document
is to precisely specify the evaluator's interpretation of what "accessible
Web content" means with respect to the particular content type(s) that
are produced by the authoring tool or are used to implement Web-based user
interface functionality of the authoring tool (if applicable). This precise
interpretation helps the evaluator to judge the completeness and consistency
of accessibility-related authoring tool functions that must interoperate,
such as accessibility prompting, evaluation, and repair functions. In addition,
because the Benchmark must be made public, it allows claims to be more fully
checked for accuracy.
What does a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document include?
A Benchmark document must be publicly published on the
Web (the URI will appear in the conformance
claim) @@under a license that permits it to be
copied, although not necessarily modified@@.
The benchmark document must include:
- The name and version of the content type(s) covered
by the Benchmark document (e.g., "HTML 4.01" or "SVG 1.0
and PNG images") and optionally the URI of the specification(s). The
version may be a defined range.
- The version and URI of the Web content accessibility
standard that is being used as a basis for the Benchmark document
(e.g., "WCAG
2.0 Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/") (See Note
on other Accessibility Standards).
- The target level of the Benchmark. This is
the level that would be met by Web content that implements
all of the benchmarks in the Benchmark document. There are three (3) possible
levels:
- The benchmarks:
For each normative requirement of the accessibility standard at the target
level, one of the following must be provided:
- at least one benchmark technique for meeting the normative requirement
using the content type (e.g., HTML 4.01 benchmark techniques for
each WCAG 2.0 Level 1 success criteria), or
- an explanation of why that normative requirement is not applicable
to the content type(s) in question (e.g., for a text-only format, normative
requirements related to images would be considered not applicable)
Note
on other Accessibility Standards: ATAG 2.0 addresses how authoring
tools can be designed to encourage authors to create accessible content.
While the Working Group highly recommends the W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines due to the quality of the document and the process under which
it was developed, other Recommendations, Standards, and Regulations with
the same goal exist in jurisdictions and organizations around the world.
Is a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document normative?
A Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document may be based on informative documents,
such as WCAG Techniques, and should not therefore be considered "normative".
Instead, the document serves as a "relied upon" reference for a particular conformance
claim when it is included
in that claim. The reference helps
the evaluator to judge the completeness and consistency of accessibility-related
authoring tool functions that must interoperate, such as accessibility prompting,
evaluation, and repair functions.
Who can create a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark?
A Benchmark can be created by any any person, company or
other organization. However, in the interest of being able to directly compare
the evaluations of authoring tools that produce the same content types, the
Working Group suggests checking to see if a Benchmark document has already
been published, before creating a new one.
What resources are available to help create a Web Content
Accessibility Benchmark?
The Working Group suggests the following:
- WCAG Guideline documents:
- WCAG Technique documents:
- Understanding WCAG documents:
- W3C Access Note series:
- Content type specifications
Conformance
Claims
A conformance claim is an assertion by a claimant that an authoring
tool has satisfied the requirements of a chosen ATAG 2.0 conformance
profile.
Conditions on Conformance
Claims
- At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the
Web as a document meeting level "A"
of Web content accessibility. A suggested metadata description
for this document is "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".
- Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., in marketing
materials), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance
claim must be included.
- The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has
reviewed the claim or assured its validity.
- Claimants may be anyone (e.g., developers, journalists, other third parties).
- Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims and
keeping claims up to date.
- Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version
of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation that is available.
Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
- The date of the claim.
- The guidelines title, version, publishing date and status (e.g., "Authoring
Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, 27 April 2007, Editor's Draft ")
- The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information
to specify the version (e.g., vendor name, version number, minor release
number, required patches or updates, natural language of the user interface
or documentation).
- The version information may be a range (e.g., "this
claim refers to version 6.x").
- If the authoring tool is a collection
of software components (e.g., a markup editor, an image editor,
and a validation tool), then information must be provided separately
for each component, although the conformance claim will treat them
as a whole.
- The conformance
profile, which must include the following:
- (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that
has been satisfied (choose one of: "A", "Double-A", "Triple-A").
- (b) A list of the content type(s) produced
by the authoring tool that are covered by the claim.
- The list must include at least one content type for the conformance
claim to be valid.
- When content types are typically produced together (e.g.,
HTML and JavaScript), they can be listed separately or together
in the list.
- Each of the content types in this list must include a Web
content accessibility benchmark document for
that content type.
- (c) A list of any other content type(s) produced by the authoring
tool that are not covered by the claim.
- (d) The platform(s) upon
which all or part (e.g., help system) of the authoring tool was evaluated:
- For user agent platform(s) used
to evaluate Web-Based user interface functionality, provide:
- The name and version information of the user
agent(s).
- The version and URI of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
document used to evaluate the accessibility of the Web-based
functionality.
- For platforms that are not user
agents, provide:
- The name and version information of the platform(s) (e.g.,
operating system, Java virtual machine, etc.).
- The name and version of the accessibility platform architecture(s)
employed.
Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
- A description of the authoring tool that identifies the types of authoring
tool functions that are present in the tool. Choose one or more of: Code-level
authoring functions, WYSIWYG authoring functions, object
oriented authoring functions, or indirect authoring
functions.
- Any additional information about the tool, including progress towards
the next conformance level.
- A description of how the normative ATAG 2.0 success criteria were met
where this may not be obvious.
"Progress
Towards Conformance" Statement
Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular
ATAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress
towards conformance. This statement would be the same as a conformance
claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2.0 conformance
level that is being progressed towards, rather than one already satisfied,
and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. The author of a "Progress
Towards Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy
of their statement. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines
for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement.
@@Disclaimer???@@
Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary
This glossary is normative.
Some definitions may differ from those in other WAI documents. The definitions
here serve the goals of this Recommendation.
- accessibility
platform architecture
- A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered
to communicate with assistive technologies. Examples include MSAA and IAccessible2
for Windows applications, Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome, Java
Access for Java applications.
- accessibility
problem, authoring tool user interface
- An aspect of
an authoring
tool user interface that fails to meet one of the guideline success
criteria in Part A. The severity of
a given problem is reflected in the level of the success criteria.
- accessibility
problem, Web content
- An aspect of Web
content that fails to meet some accessibility
requirement. In ATAG 2.0, the severity of a given problem is relative
and is determined by the accessibility standard referenced buy the Web
content accessibility benchmark.
- accessible
Web content
- Web content (e.g.,
output of an authoring tool) that is free of accessibility
problems. Usually this term is used to refer to a particular
level of accessibility (e.g., "meets
aLevel "A" Web content accessibility").
- accessible
authoring tool user interface
- An authoring
tool user interface that meets the success criteria in Part
A. The level of accessibility is
determined by the level of the satisfied success criteria.
- accessibility
information
- Any information
that is necessary for undertaking an accessible
authoring practice. For a particular content
type, this information may include, but is not limited to, equivalent
alternatives.
- accessible
authoring practice
- A technique for
creating Web content that avoids or corrects a Web
content accessibility problem. Accessible authoring practices may be
undertaken by either authors or
the authoring tool and may or may not require accessibility
information.
- accessible
content support features
- All features of the tool that play a role in satisfying the success criteria
for guidelines B.2.1, B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.4, B.2.5 and B.2.6.
- alert
- A user interface mechanism that makes authors aware
of events or actions that require a response. The author response is not
necessarily required immediately.
- audio
description (also called "Described Video")
- An equivalent
alternative that provides auditory information about actions, body
language, graphics, and scene changes in a video. Audio descriptions
are commonly used by people who are blind or have low vision, although
they may also be used as a low-bandwidth equivalent on the Web. An audio
description is either a pre-recorded human voice or a synthesized voice
(recorded or automatically generated in real time). The audio description
must be synchronized with the auditory track of a video presentation,
usually with descriptions occurring during natural pauses in the auditory
track.
- author
- The user of an authoring tool. This
may include content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers,
etc.
- authoring
action
- Any action that the author takes
using the authoring
tool user interface with the intention of adding or modifying Web
content (e.g., typing text, inserting an element, launching a wizard; but not resizing windows, viewing help, etc.).
- authoring
outcome
- A state of the Web
content being authored (e.g., bold text, resized image) that
can be achieved by applying one or more authoring practices.
There may be several alternative authoring practices that are able
to satisfy the same authoring outcome.
- authoring
tool user interface, non-Web-based
- Any part of an authoring
tool user interface that runs directly on application execution environments
other than user
agents (e.g., Windows, MacOS, Java Virtual Machine, etc.).
- authoring
tool user interface, Web-based
- Any part of an authoring
tool user interface that is implemented using a content
type and is rendered by a user
agent. Since Web-Based tools may be implemented in many of the same
content types that they are used to edit, the distinction between content
display and user interface "chrome" may
be less clear than with non-Web-Based tools.
- authoring
tool user interface
- The
display and control mechanism that authors use
to communicate with and operate the authoring tool software. Authoring
tool user interfaces may be non-Web-Based or Web-based (e.g.,
on-line content management system) or a combination of both (e.g., non-Web-based
markup editor with on-line help pages). Authoring tool user interfaces
can usefully be considered in two parts:
- Content
display: The tool's rendering of the content being edited
in an editing
view or previewed in a preview.
Examples include:
- marked-up content in a code-level editing
view,
- rendered text, images, tables, form controls, etc. in a WYSIWYG editing
view,
- vector graphics with editing "handles" in an object-oriented editing
view,
- text entries and setting values in an indirect editing
view,
- rendered text, images, tables, form controls, etc. in a preview.
- User
interface "chrome": The parts of the
user interface that surround, underlie or super-impose upon the content
display. Examples include:
- controls that surround the content display including menus, button
bars, palettes, help windows, cursors, dialog boxes, etc.,
- controls that underlie the content display (i.e. implementing
non-rendered part of editing views)
including text areas for a code-level editing
view, text boxes in an indirect editing
view, etc.,
- controls that are super-imposed upon content displays including
context menus on content, underlining problematic content, etc.
- authoring tool
- See "Definition
of authoring tool".
- captions
- Equivalent
alternatives that consist of a text transcript of the auditory track
of a movie (or other video presentation) and that is synchronized with
the video and auditory tracks. Captions are generally rendered graphically.
They benefit people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, and anyone who cannot
hear the audio (for example, someone in a noisy environment).
- checking, accessibility (also
called "accessibility evaluation")
- The process by which Web
content is evaluated for Web
content accessibility problems. ATAG 2.0 identifies three types of
checking, based on increasing levels of automation:
- manual
checking in which the authoring tool only provides instructions
for authors to follow in order to identify problems;
- semi-automated
checking in which the authoring tool is able to identify potential
problems, but still requires human judgment by the author to
make decisions that determine or help to determine whether actual
problems exist; and
- automated
checking in which the authoring tool is able to check for problems
automatically, with no human intervention required.
An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types.
- collection
of software components
- Any software products used together (e.g., base tool
and plug-in) or separately (e.g., markup editor,
image editor, and validation tool), regardless of whether there has been
any formal collaboration between the developers of the products.
- completion
of authoring vs. publishing@@
- The point in time at which an authoring session
ends and the author has no opportunity to make further changes. This may
be when an author chooses to "save and exit", or "publish"@@define@@,
or it may occur automatically at the end of a wizard, etc.
- content type
- A data format, programming or markup language that
is intended to be retrieved and rendered by a user
agent (e.g., HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, JavaScript or combinations).
- content, author generated
- When the author specifies Web
content at the level to be interpreted by the user agent (e.g.,
typing text content, typing markup into a text editor, choosing an
element by name from a list).
- content, automatically generated
- ???include generating templates or auto choosing them
- informative
- "Non-normative" parts
of this document that are never
required for conformance.
- conversion
- A process that takes as input, content in one content
type and produces as output, content in another content
type (e.g., "Save as HTML" functions).
- content, Web (or shortened to "content")
- Any material in a content type. If the content type is a markup
language, then "content" covers the information both within
the tags (i.e., the markup)
and between them. In this document, "content" is primarily
used in the context of the material that is authored and outputted by authoring
tools. @@This includes Web applications, including those that, in turn, act as authoring tools.@@
- display settings, audio
- The characteristics of
audio output of music, sounds and speech and include volume, speech voices,
voice speed, and voice emphasis.
- display settings, visual
- The characteristics of
the on-screen rendering of text and graphics and include fonts, sizes,
colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.
- document
- A structure of elements along
with any associated content; the elements used are defined by a markup language.
- documentation
- Any information that supports the use of an authoring
tool. This information may be found electronically or otherwise and includes
help, manuals, installation instructions, sample workflows,
and tutorials, etc.
- editing
view
- A view provided
by the authoring tool that allows editing of
content by authors
(e.g., code-level editing
view, WYSIWYG editing view).
- element
- A pair of
tags and their content, or an "empty" tag - one that requires
no closing tag or content (used in the same sense as in HTML [HTML4] and XML)
- end user
- A person who interacts with Web
content once it has been authored. In some cases, the author and
the end user are the same person (@@e.g., ???).
- equivalent
alternative
- Content that is an acceptable substitute
for other content that a person may not be able to access. An equivalent
alternative fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original
content upon presentation. Equivalent alternatives include text alternatives
and synchronized alternatives.
- Text
alternatives present a text version of the information conveyed
in non-text objects such as graphics and audio clips. The text alternative
is considered accessible because it can be rendered in many different ways
(e.g., as synthesized speech for individuals who have visual or learning
disabilities, as Braille for individuals who are blind, as graphical text
for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability).
- Accessible
alternatives to multimedia present the same information
as is conveyed in the multimedia via
accessible text, navigation, forms, etc.
- Synchronized
alternatives present essential audio information visually (i.e., captions)
and essential video information in an auditory manner (i.e., audio
descriptions).
- freeform
drawing
- Drawing actions that use the mouse or stylus in a continuous fashion
(e.g., a paintbrush feature). This does not cover moving or resizing object-based
graphics (including moving or resizing an object that is a previously authored
freeform graphic).
- general
flash or red flash
- ATAG 2.0 Note: The general rule "flashes more than
three times per second" can be substituted for the general and red flash
thresholds below.
- General flash threshold (Based on Wisconsin Computer
Equivalence Algorithm for Flash Pattern Analysis (FPA)): A sequence
of flashes or rapidly changing image sequences where all three of the
following occur:
- the combined area of flashes occurring concurrently (but not necessarily
contiguously) occupies more than one quarter of any 341 x 256 pixel
rectangle anywhere on the displayed screen area when the content is
viewed at 1024 x 768 pixels;
- there are more than three flashes within any one-second period; and
- the flashing is below 50 Hz.
- (Note: For the general flash threshold, a flash is defined
as a pair of opposing changes in brightness of 10% or more of full scale
white brightness, where brightness is calculated as 0.2126 * ((R / FS)
^ 2.2) + 0.7152 * ((G / FS) ^ 2.2) + 0.0722 * ((B / FS) ^ 2.2). R, G, and
B are the red, green, and blue RGB values of the color; FS is the maximum
possible full scale RGB value for R, G, and B (255 for eight bit color
channels); and the "^" character is the exponentiation operator.
An "opposing change" is an increase followed by a decrease, or
a decrease followed by an increase. This applies only when the brightness
of the darker image is below .80 of full scale white brightness.
- Red flash threshold (Note: Based on Wisconsin Computer
Equivalence Algorithm for Flash Pattern Analysis (FPA)): A transition
to or from a saturated red where both of the following occur:
- The combined area of flashes occurring concurrently occupies more
than one quarter of any 341 x 256 pixel rectangle anywhere on the displayed
screen area when the content is viewed at 1024 x 768 pixels.
- There are more than three flashes within any one-second period.
- The flashing is below 50 Hz.
- inform
- To make the author aware
of an event or situation using methods such as an alert, prompt,
sound, or flash. These methods may be unobtrusive (i.e., presented without
stopping the authors' current activity) or intrusive (i.e., interrupting
the author's current activity).
- informative
- "Non-normative" parts
of this document that are never
required for conformance.
- keyboard
interface
- Interface used by software to obtain keystroke input.
- Note 1: Allows users to provide keystroke input to programs
even if the native technology does not contain a keyboard (e.g., a touch
screen PDA has a keyboard interface built into its operating system as
well as a connector for external keyboards. Applications on the PDA can
use the interface to obtain keyboard input either from an external keyboard
or from other applications that provide simulated keyboard output, such
as handwriting interpreters or speech to text applications with "keyboard
emulation" functionality).
- Note 2: Operation of the application (or parts of the
application) through a keyboard operated mouse emulator, such as MouseKeys,
does not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because operation
of the program is through its pointing device interface - not through its
keyboard interface.
- markup
- A set of tags from a markup
language that specify the characteristics of a document.
Markup can be presentational (i.e., markup that encodes
information about the visual layout of the content), structural (i.e.,
markup that encodes information about the structural role of elements
of the content) or semantic (i.e., markup that encodes
information about the intended meaning of the content).
- markup language
- A syntax and/or set of rules to manage markup (e.g.,
HTML [HTML4], SVG [SVG], or MathML [MATHML]).
- multimedia
- Audio or video synchronized with another type of media and/or with time-based
interactive components.
- non-text
objects
- Content objects that are not represented by text character(s) when rendered
in a user agent (e.g., images, audio, video).
- normative
- Parts of this document that are always required for conformance.
- platform
- The software environment within which the authoring tool
operates. For functionality that is not Web-based, this will be an operating
system (e.g., Windows, MacOS, Linux), virtual machine (e.g., JVM) or a
higher level GUI toolkit (e.g., Eclipse). For Web-based
functionality, the term applies more generically to user agents in
general, although for purposes of evaluating conformance to ATAG 2.0, a
specific user agent(s) will be listed in the conformance
profile.
- plug-in
- A program that runs as part of the authoring
tool (e.g., a third-party evaluation and repair tool). Users generally
choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.
- presentation
- The rendering of the content and structure in a form
that can be perceived by the user.
- preview
- A non-editable view of the content that is intended to
show how it will appear and behave in a user
agent.
- prominence
- A heuristic measure of the degree to
which authors are
likely to notice controls in the authoring
tool user interface when operating the authoring tool.
In this document, prominence refers to visual as well as keyboard-driven
navigation. Some of the factors that contribute to the prominence of
a control include:
- Control size (large controls or controls surrounded
by extra white space may appear to be conferred higher importance),
- Control order (items
that occur early in the "localized" reading order (e.g., left
to right and top to bottom; right to left and top to bottom) are conferred
higher importance),
- Control grouping (grouping controls
together can change the reading order and the related judgments of importance),
advanced
options (when the properties are explicitly or implicitly grouped
into sets of basic and advanced properties, the basic properties may
gain apparent importance), and
- Highlighting (controls
may be distinguished from others using icons, color, styling).
- prompt
- In this document "prompt" refers to any authoring tool initiated
request for a decision or piece of information from
authors. Well designed
prompting will urge, suggest, and encourage authors.
- repairing,
accessibility
- The process by which Web
content accessibility problems that have been identified within Web
content are resolved. ATAG 2.0 identifies three types of repairing,
based on increasing levels of automation:
- Manual repairing
in which the authoring tool only provides instructions for authors to
follow in order to make the necessary correction;
- Semi-Automated repairing,
in which the authoring tool can provide some automated assistance to
the author in performing corrections, but the author's input is still
required before the repair can be completed; and
- Automated repairing,
in which the authoring tool is able to make repairs automatically, with
no author input
or confirmation from the author. An authoring tool may support any combination
of repairing types.
- reversible
actions
- Actions that, by their nature,
can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was
in before the action. Actions that are not reversible may include certain
save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment
that another author has begun to work with.
- selectable
items
- Any items that an author may select from within the menus, toolbars,
palettes, etc. (e.g., "open", "save", "emphasis", "check
spelling")
- structured
element set
- Content organized into lists, maps, hierarchies (e.g., tree views), graphs,
etc.
- transcript
- A non-synchronized text
alternative for the sounds, narration, and dialogue in an audio clip
or the auditory track of a multimedia presentation. For a video, the
transcript can also include the description of actions, body language,
graphics, and scene changes of the visual track.
- transformation
- A process that takes as input, an object in one content
type and produces as output, a different object in the same content
type (e.g., a function that transforms tables into lists).
- tutorial
- A type of documentation which involves
the sequential presentation of instructions for performing multi-part tasks.
- user
agent
- Software that retrieves and renders Web content. This
may include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including
assistive technologies, that help in retrieving and rendering Web content.
- view
- A rendering of Web
content by an authoring tool. Authoring tool views are usually either editing
views or previews.
- Wisconsin Computer
Equivalence Algorithm for Flash Pattern Analysis (FPA)
- A method developed at the University of Wisconsin, working in conjunction
with Dr. Graham Harding and Cambridge Research Associates, for applying
the United Kingdom's "Ofcom Guidance Note on Flashing Images and Regular
Patterns in Television (Re-issued as Ofcom Notes 25 July 2005)" to
content displayed on a computer screen, such as Web pages and other computer
content.
Note: The Ofcom Guidance Document [OFCOM] is
based on the assumption that the television screen occupies the central
ten degrees of vision. This is not accurate for a screen which is located
in front of a person. The Wisconsin algorithm basically carries out the
same analysis as the Ofcom Guidelines except that is does it on every possible
ten degree window for a prototypical computer display.
- workflow
- A customary sequence of steps or tasks that are followed
to produce a deliverable.
Appendix B: References
For the latest version of any W3C specification
please consult the list of W3C Technical
Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR/. Some documents listed below may have
been superseded since the publication of this document.
Note: In this document, bracketed labels such as "[HTML4]" link
to the corresponding entries in this section. These labels are also identified
as references through markup. Normative references are highlighted and identified
through markup.
There are two recommended ways to refer to the "Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0" (and to W3C documents in general):
- References to a specific version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0." For example, use the "this version" URI to
refer to the current document: http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/.
- References to the latest version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0." Use the "latest version" URI to refer to
the most recently published document in the series: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.
In almost all cases, references (either by name or by link) should be to
a specific version of the document. W3C will make every effort to make this
document indefinitely available at its original address in its original form.
The top of this document includes the relevant catalog metadata for specific
references (including title, publication date, "this version" URI,
editors' names, and copyright information).
An XHTML 1.0 paragraph including a reference to this specific document
might be written:
<p>
<cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ATAG20-????????/">
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0,"</a></cite>
J. Treviranus, J. Richards, M. May, eds.,
W3C Recommendation, ?? ???? ????.
The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/">latest
version</a> of this document is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.</p>
For very general references to this document (where stability of content
and anchors is not required), it may be appropriate to refer to the latest
version of this document.
Other sections of this document explain how to build a conformance
claim.
A document appears in this section if at least one reference to the document
appears in a guideline success criteria.
- [WCAG10]
- "Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden,
and I. Jacobs, eds., 5 May 1999. This WCAG 1.0 Recommendation
is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/.
- [WCAG20]
- "Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 (Working Draft)", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden,
and J. White, editors. The latest version of the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Note:
This document is still a working draft.
- [ATAG10]
- "Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs,
and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/.
- [ATAG20-TECHS]
- "Techniques
for Authoring Tool Accessibility 2.0", J. Treviranus, J. Richards,
C. McCathieNevile, and M. May, eds., 22 November 2004. The latest draft
of this W3C note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20-TECHS.
- [COMPONENTS]
- "Essential Components
of Web Accessibility", S. L. Henry, ed. This document is available
at http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.
- [CSS2-ACCESS]
- "Accessibility
Features of CSS," I. Jacobs and J. Brewer, eds., 4 August 1999.
This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/1999/08/NOTE-CSS-access-19990804.
The latest version of Accessibility
Features of CSS is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access.
- [HTML4]
- "HTML
4.01 Recommendation", D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs,
eds., 24 December 1999. This HTML 4.01 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224.
The latest version of HTML 4 is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4.
- [MATHML]
- "Mathematical Markup Language",
P. Ion and R. Miner, eds., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July 1999. This MathML
1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/1999/07/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.
- [OFCOM]
- Guidance Notes, Section 2: Harm and offence Annex 1, "Ofcom Guidance
Note on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television (Re-issued as
Ofcom Notes 25 July 2005)" available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/guidance/bguidance/guidance2.pdf)
- [PWD-USE-WEB]
- "How
People With Disabilities Use the Web", J. Brewer, ed., 4 January
2001. This document is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/.
- [SMIL-ACCESS]
- "Accessibility
Features of SMIL," M.-R. Koivunen and I. Jacobs, eds., 21 September
1999. This W3C Note is available at available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL-access.
- [SVG]
- "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)
1.0 Specification (Working Draft)", J. Ferraiolo, ed. The latest
version of the SVG specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG.
- [SVG-ACCESS]
- "Accessibility of Scalable
Vector Graphics," C. McCathieNevile, M.-R. Koivunen, eds., 7
August 2000. This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-access.
- [WCAG10-TECHS]
- "Techniques for Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden,
and I. Jacobs, eds., 6 November 2000. This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-GENERAL]
- "General
Techniques for WCAG 2.0," J. Slatin, T. Croucher, eds. Note:
This document is still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-CSS]
- "CSS Techniques
for WCAG 2.0," W. Chisholm, B. Gibson, eds. Note: This
document is still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-HTML]
- "HTML Techniques
for WCAG 2.0," M. Cooper, ed. Note: This document is
still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-SCRIPTING]
- "Client-side
Scripting Techniques for WCAG 2.0," M. May, B. Gibson, eds. Note:
This document is still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-UNDERSTANDING]
- "Understanding
WCAG 2.0," B. Caldwell, W. Chisholm, J. Slatin, G. Vanderheiden,
eds. Note: This document is still a working draft.
- [XAG]
- "XML Accessibility Guidelines",
D. Dardailler, S. B. Palmer, C. McCathieNevile, eds. 3 October 2002. This
is a Working Group Draft.
Appendix C: Acknowledgments
Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:
- Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology)
- Barry A. Feigenbaum (IBM)
- Greg Pisocky (Adobe)
- Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
- Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
- Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University
of Toronto)
Other previously active WCAG WG participants and other contributors to
WCAG 2.0
Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler,
Geoff Deering, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday,
Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Charles McCathieNevile, Matt May,
Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob
Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Heather Swayne, Gregg Vanderheiden,
Carlos Velasco, and Jason White.
This document would not have been possible without the work of those
who contributed to ATAG 1.0.
This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S.
Department of Education under contract number ED05CO0039. The content of
this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the
U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
[Contents] [Techniques]
[Checklist]