This section is informative, except where
noted.
This is a Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version
2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting developers to make their authoring tools more accessible to a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, and others. However, even authoring tools that conform to ATAG 2.0 may not be able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees and combinations of disabilities.
In order to achieve accessibility, authoring tools must address the needs of two (potentially overlapping) user groups:
- authors of Web content, whose needs are met by ensuring the authoring
tool user interface itself is accessible (see Part
A of the guidelines), and
- end
users of Web content, whose needs are met by ensuring that all authors are enabled, supported, and guided towards producing accessible
Web content, with the assumption that many authors will not be familiar with the specific needs of end users with disabilities (see Part B of the guidelines).
The guidelines do not include standard usability recommendations except where they have a significantly greater impact on people
with disabilities than on other people.
Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Creation of authoring tools that address the specialized needs of these communities for is encouraged, but is outside the scope of this document.
These guidelines have been written to address the requirements
of many different audiences, including, but not limited to:
- Web content authoring tool developers,
- Web content authoring tool users (authors),
- Web content authoring tool purchasers, and
- policy makers.
ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any software, or collection of software components, that authors can use to create or modify
Web content for use by other people.
===================
ATAG 2.0 defines an authoring tool as any application, part of an application, or collection of applications that authors interact with to create, modify or assemble Web content to be used by other people.
These guidelines apply to the functions of the authoring tool that present authoring choices to the author or makes choices on behalf of the author. These guidelines do not apply to when the author has no editorial control.
The definition applies to all or part of the following types of applications:
- WYSIWYG editors, plain text editors (embedded and stand-alone)
- conversion tools, software that can output Web content technologies (e.g., "Save as HTML")
- blogging tools, wikis, online forums, emailers that produce Web-content
- multimedia authoring tools
- scripting tools, widget development environment
- content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators
- site management tools
- etc.
Note 1: Synchronous tools (e.g., chats, collaboration tools, whiteboards, etc.), especially those that archive as Web content, are considered authoring tools and can be made more accessible for both participants and users of the stored archives. While not all parts of ATAG 2.0 will usefully apply, some techniques for real-time content production are available.
Note 2: Guidelines in this document that require the ability of authors to modify content in some way always assume that the author has editorial control.
===========================
For example, in a CMS system managing a portal, the widget that selects the RSS feed would be covered by ATAG, but the data coming in on the RSS feed would not apply. In a large document management system, the components that allowed entry or selection of alternative formats would apply, but the components that displayed dynamic content where there is no editorial control, would not apply.
However, the definition excludes cases in which:
- the authoring tool lacks authoring functionality...
- authors lack permission to edit content
- authors lack knowledge about future changes to content (e.g., media files to be submitted by end users, aggregated news feeds, etc.)
For example, ATAG does not apply to a component that imports documents into a document share system, or a portal that aggregates RSS feeds. ATAG does apply to the portal management widget that selects the RSS.
assemble?
These guidelines apply to the functions in which authoring choices the authoring tool presents to the author or makes on behalf of the author.
This definition can cover components such as :
- IN
- Typing text
- Authoring choice
- Creating templates
- Setting stylesheets
- Create controls
- OUT
- Pulling in stuff that is out of control
- JT:
- Interact with human author
- Choices under control of tool
Components of Web Accessibility
Authoring tools are just one aspect of accessibility. For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see:
Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document
Two Parts
ATAG 2.0 is 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 to authors with disabilities. Part B contains
principles and guidelines related to ensuring support by authoring tools for the creation of accessible
Web content by any author (not just those with disabilities) to end
users with disabilities.
Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible
The guidelines and success criteria in Part A are organized around the following four principles, adapted from the four principles in WCAG 2.0:
- Authoring tool must facilitate access by assistive technology - Assistive technologies can only provide augmented display and control to their
users if the relevant information is made available by authoring tools using common protocols.
- Authoring tool must be perceivable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to perceive its user interface components.
- Authoring tool must be operable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to operate its user interface components.
- Authoring tool must be understandable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to understand the user interface components that they can perceive and operate.
Part B: Support the production of accessible content
There are three principles in Part B:
- Production
of accessible content must be enabled - The creation of accessible content is dependent on the combined actions of the
authoring tool and the author. This guideline specifies the responsibilities that
rest exclusively with the tool.
- Authors must be supported
in the production of accessible content - Actions may be taken at the author's initiative that may result in accessibility
problems. The authoring tool should include features that provide
support and guidance to authors in
these situations, so that accessible
authoring practices can be followed and accessible
web content can be produced.
- Accessibility
solutions must be promoted and integrated -Authoring tools should encourage the discovery of tools, features, or functionality which support accessible authoring practices, while at the same time, integrating functions related to accessibility in order to ensure that authors make them common practice.
Note: While the requirements in Part B do not
deal with the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface per se, it should
be noted that any of the features (e.g., checker, tutorial) added to an authoring tool to meet
the Part B success criteria must also meet the user interface accessibility requirements of Part
A.
Success Criteria
Under each guideline there are success criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when a specific authoring tool is tested against it. While all of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be testable and some test automation may be possible, human testing will usually be required. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest).
Each of the success criteria has a link to the Techniques document that provides:
- "Sufficient" techniques for meeting the success criteria, and @@define@@
- optional "Advisory" techniques.@@define@@
Note: Any success criteria that are judged not applicable
to a particular authoring tool are treated as satisfied for
conformance purposes, as long as a rationale is provided.
Levels of Conformance
Authoring tools may claim full conformance
to ATAG 2.0 at one of three "full" conformance levels. The level achieved depends
on the level of the success
criteria 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 A success criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Double-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the Level A and Level
AA success criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Triple-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the success criteria.
@@Maybe remove partial@@
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
A 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
A and Level AA 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
A 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
A and Level AA 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.
Relationship
to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) @@rephrase@@
The ATAG 2.0 conformance relies upon
Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" documents to precisely specify what an evaluator interprets "accessible
Web content" to mean for the particular Web content technologies that an authoring tool produces and, in the case of Web-based tools, is implemented using.
The primary recommended reference for the Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" is a version of the
W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), due to the
quality of the documents and the process under which they were developed
(See Note on other Accessibility Standards). At the time of publication,
version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation [WCAG10],
and version 2.0 is a W3C Candidate Recommendation [WCAG20].
Although a Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" document may use either version of WCAG, developers should give consideration to the following:
- 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 technologies for which there are published WCAG technique documents. This is important
because the techniques documents may be useful when constructing Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" documents as required by ATAG 2.0.
- 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
PART A:
Make the authoring tool user interface accessible
Applicability:
In some cases, success criteria in Part A may apply equally well to both authoring tool functionalities that reflect the content being edited and those functionalities that do not. When it is necessary to remove ambiguity about the scope of a success criterion, the criterion will include one of the following labels:
- Content Dependent: These success criteria apply only to functionality that reflects the content being edited (e.g., content renderings, the document object), which the author may have created with a different tool and that the authoring tool may or may not recognize. Accessibility problems in the content dependent user interface that are due to accessibility problems in the content are exempt from
the usual requirements (e.g., if image markup content lacks a text label, it is permissible for a WYSIWYG rendering of that
image to lack a label).
- Content Independent: These success criteria apply only to functionality that does not vary according to the "content being edited" (e.g., the authoring tool's menus, user preferences, and documentation).
PRINCIPLE
A.1: Authoring tools must follow applicable specifications and conventions
Guideline A.1.1
[For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that Web-based
functionality is accessible.
[Techniques]
Rationale: In
addition to generally improving the accessibility of the authoring
tool user interface, implementing Web-based functionality (e.g., editing views, documentation) using accessible Web content facilitates communication with assistive
technologies via user agents.
Applicability Note: This guideline does not apply to non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces, but does includes any parts of non-Web-based authoring tools that are Web-based (e.g., help systems).
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.1.1
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.1.1
- A.1.1.2 Web-Based "AA" Accessible: Web-based authoring tool user
interfaces meet WCAG level "AA".
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.1.1
- A.1.1.3 Web-Based "AAA" Accessible: Web-based authoring tool user
interfaces meet WCAG level "AAA".
Guideline A.1.2
[For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that non-Web-based functionality is accessible. [Techniques]
Applicability Note: This guideline does not apply to Web-based authoring tool user interfaces.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.1.2
- A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based "A" Accessible: Meet, at a minimum level, all applicable platform and accessibility standards and conventions.@@we need to ensure "functional equivalency"@@
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.1.2
- (No level AA success criteria for Guideline A.1.2)
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.1.2
- (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline A.1.2)
Guideline A.2.1
[For the authoring tool user interface] Provide access to alternative equivalents in the content.
[Techniques]
Rationale: People
who have difficulty perceiving non-text objects are often able to
access text alternatives of the same information because there are a variety of ways to display text (e.g., magnification, enhancement, text-to-speech, Braille output)
Applicability Note: Since the first success criteria only applies when non-text objects are rendered in an editing view. This exempts plain text editors.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.2.1
Guideline A.2.3
[For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that the interface can be presented in different ways.
[Techniques]
Rationale: Authors need to have access to and control over both the functional significance of presentation and also, in the context of authoring, the presentation that will be experienced by the end user. This is especially important for user interface components that do not implement an accessibility platform architecture or leverage existing implementations (e.g. custom user interface components built via JavaScript and CSS). Some authors require display settings that differ from the presentation that they intend to define for the published content (e.g., using a high contrast setting during editing content that is not intended to be high contrast).
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.2.3
- A.2.4.1 Independence of Display: Editing
views that usually have their display characteristics set
by rendering the content being
edited (e.g., WYSIWYG editing views) allows the authors' visual and audio display settings to override these characteristics without
affecting the content (e.g.,
markup, stylesheets, etc.) being edited.
- A.2.3.3 Purpose of Added Presentation: If the authoring tool modifies the presentation of the content being edited, then the functional purpose for the modification is made available via the platform (e.g., if misspelled text is underlined, the fact that it is misspelled is made available).
- A.2.3.4 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG) renders any of the following text presentation properties and those properties are editable by any editing view (e.g., instruction level), then the properties are made available via the platform:
- (a) font,
- (b) style (e.g., italic, bold),
- (c) color, and
- (d) size.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.2.3
- (No level AA success criteria for Guideline A.2.3)
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.2.3
- A.2.3.7 Access to Text Presentation (Enhanced): Any text presentation properties (text size, positioning, etc.) that are rendered in an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG editing views ) and editable by any editing view are available via the platform.
PRINCIPLE
A.3: Authoring tool user interface must be operable
Guideline A.3.1
[For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance keyboard access to authoring features. [Techniques]
Rationale: Providing alternate keyboard accessibility provides access for people with limited mobility and people with
visual disabilities, who cannot rely on hand-eye coordination for
navigating the user interface.
Conformance Note: Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality may rely on the keyboard
navigation functions of the user
agent listed in the conformance
profile to satisfy some of these success criteria.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.1
- A.3.1.6 Accelerator Keys: If the authoring tool includes any of the following functions, authors can enable
key-plus-modifier-key (or single-key) access to them (where allowed by the operating environment):
- (a) open help system,
- (b) open new content,
- (c) open existing content,
- (d) save content,
- (e) close content,
- (f) cut/copy/paste,
- (g) undo/redo, and
- (h) open find/replace function.
- A.3.1.3 Available Keystrokes: Authors can always determine the currently available
keystrokes (e.g., from a central location such as a list in the
help system or a distributed location such as associating shortcuts
with menu items). [UAAG 2.0]
- A.3.1.4 Standard Text Area Conventions: Editing
views that allow text entry support the standard text area conventions for
the platform including, but not necessarily limited to:
character keys, backspace/delete, insert, "arrow" key
navigation, page up/page down, navigate to start/end, navigate
by paragraph, shift-to-select mechanism, etc.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.1
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.1
Guideline A.3.2
[For the authoring tool user interface] Enable time-independent interaction.
[Techniques]
Rationale: People
who have difficulty typing, operating the mouse, or processing information
can be prevented from using systems with short time limits.
Applicability Note: Several of the success criteria in this guideline only apply when there are time limits put on the author, which is currently not very common for authoring tools.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.2
- A.3.2.1 Data Saved: If the authoring tool ends an authoring session due to a time limit (e.g., authenticated session expires), then the authors have the "pre-settable" option to save the content being edited. For Web-Based Authoring Tools, this applies to any content that has already been submitted to the application by the user agent.
- A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: If the authoring tool is responsible for imposing a time limit on authoring sessions (e.g., to mediate collaborative
authoring), then authors can extend the time limit.
- A.3.2.3 Moving Targets: If components that act as targets for authors' actions (e.g., are clickable, accept drag-and-drop actions) are capable of movement, then authors can stop that movement.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.2
- (No level AA success criteria for Guideline A.3.2)
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.2
- A.3.2.4 No Time Limits: Authors have the option to remove time limits on authoring sessions.
Guideline A.3.3
[For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures. [Techniques]
Rationale: Flashing
can cause seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.3
- A.3.3.2 Blinking Request: If an editing
view renders content such the authoring tool recognizes as blinking or flashing (e.g.
blink
element), then the author has the option to turn off this blinking or flashing.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.3
- (No level AA success criteria for Guideline A.3.3)
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.3
Guideline A.3.4
[For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance navigation and editing via content structure. [Techniques]
Rationale: People
who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when the structure that may be inherent
in certain content can be used to navigate more efficiently within editing views and to perform
edits.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.4
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.4
- A.3.4.2 Navigate By Element Type (content
display): If an editing
view displays a structured
element set, authors can move the editing focus forward/backward to the next identical or closely related (e.g., in the case of headers) element.
- @@Navigate identicals@@
- @@Navigate headings@@
- A.3.4.3 Navigate Tree Structures (content
display): If an editing
view displays a structured
element set, authors can, with a simple action, move
the editing focus from any element to
other elements in the set with any of the following
relationships (if they exist):
- (a) Parent: the element immediately
above,
- (b) Child: the first element immediately
below,
- (c) Previous Sibling: the element immediately
preceding at the same level, and
- (d) Next Sibling: the element immediately
following at the same level.
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.4
- (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline A.3.4)
Guideline
A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide
text search. [Techniques]
Rationale: People
who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to navigation to arbitrary points within editing views.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.5
- (No level A success criteria for Guideline A.3.5)
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.5
- A.3.5.1 Text Search (content
display): A text search function is provided that meets the following conditions:
- (a) Search All Editable: can search any textual information (including
text content, text
alternatives for non-text
objects, metadata, markup) that is editable using the authoring tool.
- (b) Bi-Directional: can search backwards and forwards. [UAAG 2.0]
- (c) Case Sensitive: can search in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes. [UAAG 2.0]
- (d) May Switch Views: permissible for the authoring tool to switch editing views to display the search results (e.g.,
from WYSIWYG to instruction level in order to display markup).
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.5
- (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline A.3.5)
Note: Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality may rely on the "find" function of the user
agent listed in the conformance
profile to help perform the searches.
Guideline A.3.6
[For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings. [Techniques]
Rationale: Providing
the ability to save and reload sets of keyboard and display preference
settings benefits people using multi-user tools as well as people who have needs that differ over time (e.g., due to fatigue).
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.6
- (No level A success criteria for Guideline A.3.6)
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.6
- A.3.6.1 Save Settings (user
interface "chrome"): Preference settings are stored for any of the following that the authoring tool controls
(i.e., not controlled by the platform):
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.6
- A.3.6.2 Multiple Sets (user
interface "chrome"): Choosing between multiple sets of preferences (e.g., personal profiles,
personal settings) are supported for any of the following that the authoring tool controls (i.e., not controlled by the platform):
- A.3.6.3 Options Wizard (user
interface "chrome"): Authors are provided with an accessibility option-setting "wizard" to configure options related to Part A.
Guideline A.3.7
[For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that previews are
as accessible as existing user
agents. [Techniques]
Rationale: Preview features
are provided in many authoring tools because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how content will appear
to end users in
a user
agent. Authors with disabilities need to be able to follow
the same workflow.
Note: Previews are treated differently than editing views because authors, including those with disabilities, will not be well-served if preview features diverge too much from the actual functionality of available user agents. Therefore, preview features are exempted from necessarily having to meet all of the other requirements in Part A of this guidelines document, if they meet this guideline.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.7
- A.3.7.1 Return Mechanism (user
interface "chrome"): If a preview is
provided, then a keyboard accessible mechanism for returning
from the preview (i.e., moving focus back from, exiting from) is provided and
is documented in the help system.
- A.3.7.2 Preview (user interface "chrome", content display): If a preview is provided, then it meets at least one of the following:
- (a) Existing User Agent: the preview makes
use of an existing user
agent that is specified in the conformance
profile (e.g., opening the
content in a third-party browser or browser component),
- (b) Part A.1: the preview meets
all of the Level A guidelines in Part
A of these guidelines, or
- (c) UAAG: the preview conforms
to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines [UAAG].
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.7
- (No level AA success criteria for Guideline A.3.7)
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.3.7
- (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline A.3.7)
PRINCIPLE
???
Guideline A.4.3 [For the
authoring tool user interface] Help users avoid and correct mistakes.
[Techniques]
Rationale: People who have difficulty making fine movements may be prone to making
unintended actions.
Note 1: Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality may rely on the "undo" function of the user
agent listed in the conformance
profile to perform the undo function for some editing actions
that do not involve server communication (e.g., typing in a
text area).
Note 2: It
is acceptable to collect text entry actions (e.g., typed words, a
series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.3
- A.4.3.1 Undo Content Changes (content
display): Authoring actions are either reversible by an "undo" function or include a warning
to authors that the action is irreversible. The authoring
tool may have certain committing actions (e.g., "save" function)
that reset the undo history.
- A.4.3.2 Undo Setting Changes (user
interface "chrome"): Actions
that modify authoring tool settings are either reversible or include a warning
to the author that the setting modification is irreversible.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.3
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.3
Guideline A.4.4
[For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface
including all accessibility features.
[Techniques]
Rationale: While
intuitive user interface design is valuable to many authors, some
people may still not be able to understand or be able to operate
the authoring tool user interface without proper documentation.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.4
- A.4.4.1 Accessible Format: At least one
version of the documentation is either:
- (a) "A" Accessible: Web content and conforms to a minimum
level of Web content accessibility (although it is not necessary
for the documentation to be delivered on-line), or
- (b) Accessible Platform Format: not Web content and conforms to a published accessibility
benchmark that is identified in the conformance
claim (e.g.,
when platform-specific documentation systems are used).
- A.4.4.2 Document Accessibility Features: All features (other than documentation) that are specifically required
to meet Part
A of these guidelines (e.g.
keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.) are documented.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.4
- (No level AA success criteria for Guideline A.4.4)
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline A.4.4
- (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline A.4.4)
PART
B: Support the production of accessible content
Applicability:
While the production of accessible content is always recommended, conformance claims are only made in reference to the benchmarked Web content technologies identified in the conformance claim.
@@- Authors may only reasonably be expected to make decisions about content that they have information about. Therefore, authoring decisions that would require specific knowledge about content that is unknown to author at the time of authoring (e.g., descriptions of media files to be submitted by end users, aggregated news feeds, etc.) are exempt from Part B.@@
@@
- Support for accessible authoring is only required for "Authored Technologies" and those accessibility practices that take place in an "Authored Technology", but are related to the "Referenced Technologies" (e.g., alt text for images) with the exception that support for creating "(Conforming) Alternate Versions" is not required.@@
PRINCIPLE
B.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled
Guideline B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible.
[Techniques]
Rationale: Make it easier for the author to create accessible content by choosing technologies which support that.
Note: Understanding how content can be made accessible in the technologies your tool outputs will be useful in designing authoring support. Therefore, consider creating/locating benchmark documents for technology(ies) that your authoring tool outputs and favor technologies with strong accessibility capabilities.
to provide accessible WCT among your choices of WCT, provide a choice of WCT with accessible WCT given priority or selected by default, inform authors about which WCT are more accessible, inform authors when they are choosing less accessible WCT.
Applicability Note: This guideline only applies when benchmarked technologies are available for authoring the particular type of content required (e.g., text, images, synchronized media).
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.1
- B.1.1.1 Tool Choice of Technologies: If the authoring tool automatically selects Web content technologies, then the selection is a benchmarked technology.
- B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies: If the authoring tool provides authors with technology options, benchmarked technology options are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options.
- If the authoring tool make automatic decisions about technologies for the author, the technologies must have the potential to be used to create accessible content.
- If the author makes decisions about technologies for themselves, the tool must provide guidance about which have the potential to be used to create accessible content.
- The tool should guide the author towards the most accessible technology for the task.
- B.1.1.1 Automatic Choice of "A" Technologies: If the authoring tool automatically selects Web content technologies, then the selection is a level "A" benchmarked technology.
- B.1.1.2 Author Choice of "A" Technologies: If the authoring tool provides authors with technology options, level "A" benchmarked technology options are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options.
Guideline B.1.2
Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility
information.
[Techniques]
Rationale: Accessibility
information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility
across transformations and conversions.@@aggregated feeds@@
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.2
- B.1.2.1 Transformation or Conversion (Minimum): If the authoring tool performs transformations or conversions,
then for recognized accessibility
information at least one of the following is true:
- (a) Preserve in Output: any accessibility
information in the pre-transformation/conversion content is preserved and available for end
users in the resulting content;
- (b) Preserve Input and Notify: a copy of the pre-transformation/conversion accessibility
information is retained (e.g., as a "comment", by saving a backup
copy) and the authors are notified of the location; or
- (c) Author Queried: the author is queried for an action for each piece of accessibility information that will not be preserved.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.2
- B.1.2.2 Transformation or Conversion (Enhanced): If the authoring tool performs transformations or conversions,
then any recognized accessibility
information in the pre-transformation/conversion content is preserved and available for end
users in the resulting content;
- B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason, then at least one of the following is true:
- (a) Preserve Accessibility Information: the authoring tool can detect that the content is not accessibility
information;
- (b) Notification Option: authors have the option to receive notification before deletion; or
- (c) No Deletion Option: authors have the option to turn off the automatic deletion.
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.2
- (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline B.1.2)
Guideline B.1.3
Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible.
[Techniques]
Rationale: Authoring
tools that automatically generate content that is not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.
Related: If accessibility
information is required from authors during
the automatic generation process, see Guideline
B.2.1. If templates or other pre-authored content are involved, see Guideline B.2.5.
Applicability Note 1: This guideline does not apply to any accessibility problems that informed authors have specifically allowed (e.g., by setting less strict preferences) (see Guideline B.3.3 for more on informing the author).
Applicability Note 2: This guideline does not apply when authors have caused the accessibility problem(s) (e.g.,
by ignoring prompts for accessibility information, providing faulty information, etc.).
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.3
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.3
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.3
PRINCIPLE B.2:
Authors must be supported in the production of
accessible content
@@Preamble: Principle B.2 applies to situations in which the application processes that interact with a human authors, and the authoring choices that author is making or the authoring choices under the control of the authoring tool. Authoring choices include choice of style sheets, templates, scripts, etc
Guideline B.2.1 Guide authors to
create accessible content.
[Techniques]
Rationale: By guiding the authors from the outset towards the creation and maintenance of accessible content, accessibility problems are mitigated and less repair and retrofit effort is required.@@Link to technique appendix!@@
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.1
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.1
- B.2.1.3 Guide "AA" Accessible: If authors are cued for any information as content is being added or updated, then the tool also prominently cues for accessibility information required for that content to meet the level "AA" Web content accessibility
benchmarks.
- B.2.1.4 Warn "AA" Accessible: If an authoring action or instruction will always lead to the creation
of content that cannot be made to meet the level "AA" Web content accessibility
benchmarks other than by making an alternative version, then
a warning is displayed.
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.1
- B.2.1.5 Guide "AAA" Accessible: If authors are cued for any information as content is being added or updated, then the tool also prominently cues for accessibility information required for that content to meet the level "AAA" Web
content accessibility benchmarks.
- B.2.1.6 Warn "AAA" Accessible: If an authoring action or
instruction will always lead to the creation of content that cannot be made to meet the
level "AAA" Web content accessibility
benchmarks other than by making an alternative version, then
a warning is displayed.
Guideline B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.
[Techniques]
Rationale: Checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool helps make authors aware of accessibility problems during the authoring process, so they can be immediately addressed. @@JR: "authoring system" instead of "authoring tool" to make more clear?@@
Note: While automated
checking or more advanced implementations of semi-automated
checking may improve the authoring experience, only manual checking is minimally required to meet the success criteria for this guideline.
Applicability Note: This guideline does not apply if the authoring tool controls the authoring process to an extent that it is not possible for authors to introduce accessibility problems.
Note: Content that the author knows will change (e.g., aggregated feeds) or can't control (e.g., later user comments) will be exempt from guiding/checking/repair.@@at top@@
Note: It is a good design decision for tools to remember author answers to questions to prompts and checks.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.2
- B.2.2.1 Check "A" Accessibility: An individual check is associated with each level
"A" Web
content accessibility benchmark.
- B.2.2.2 Availability: Checking is available prior
to publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool.
- Should be able to check for things that the tool has the functionality to modify (e.g., a tool that can edit captions should check for them).
- B.2.2.2 Identify Range: The appropriate range (e.g., element, group of elements, entire file, site, Web application, etc.) for each potential accessibility
problem is identified.
- For manual checks, it is acceptable to save author judgements.
- Define "capabiltity to augment" - define "unreasonable" , "reasonable to augment" "ability to augment"
- Excessively general checks (e.g., "does the page meet
all of the requirements?") are not acceptable.
- B.2.2.4 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether
a potential accessibility
problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), instructions are provided
to help authors to
decide.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.2
- B.2.2.5 Check "AA" Accessibility: An individual check is associated with each level
"AA" Web content accessibility benchmark.
- B.2.2.6 View Status: If the authoring tool records accessibility problems
found during checking, then a list of any accessibility problems is available to authors prior to the end of the authoring session.
- B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking , authors have the option to save the list to facilitate interoperability between checking and repair.
- B.2.2.8 Metadata for Discovery: If the authoring tool records accessibility status, then authors have the option to associate this status with the content as metadata to facilitate resource discovery by end users.
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.2
Guideline B.2.3
Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems.
[Techniques]
Rationale: Repair as an integral part of the authoring process greatly enhances the utility of checking and increases the likelihood that accessibility
problems will be properly addressed.
Conformance Note: While automated
repairing or more advanced implementations of semi-automated
repairing may improve the authoring experience, only manual repairing is minimally required to meet the success criteria for this guideline.
Applicability Note: This guideline does not apply if the authoring
tool controls the authoring process to an extent that it
is not possible for authors to introduce accessibility problems
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.3
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.3
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.3
Guideline
B.2.4 Assist authors to manage, edit, and reuse equivalent alternatives for non-text objects.
[Techniques]
Rationale: Improperly
generated equivalent alternatives can create accessibility problems
and interfere with accessibility checking.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.4
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.4
- B.2.4.3 Acceptable Sources: Authoring tools only supply equivalent alternatives from the following sources:
- (a) Author-Entered: equivalent
alternatives previously entered by authors for
the same non-text
object (e.g., by the same author, or another author on
a collaborative system),
- (b) From Object Database: equivalent
alternatives stored with the non-text
object in an object database (or equivalent),
- (c) Null when Appropriate: null equivalent
alternatives for non-text
objects that the authoring tool recognizes are only used for pure decoration, or
- (d) Audio, Video, or CART Analysis: automatic video or audio analysis (e.g., speech recognition).
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.4
- B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors can store, for future reuse, both of the following author-assigned equivalent
alternatives (as applicable):
Note: Equivalent
alternatives should not be automatically generated from unreliable sources (e.g., file
names should not be used as text alternatives).
Guideline B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.
[Techniques]
Rationale: As with automatically-generated content (see Guideline B.1.3), templates and other pre-authored
content (e.g., clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.) that are not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.
Applicability Note: Templates may be complicated to check for accessibility due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of templates is instead measured by the accessibility of content (in the final technology) created through their proper use.
Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.5
- B.2.5.1 Templates "A" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets the level
"A" Web
content accessibility benchmarks when used.
- B.2.5.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses.
- B.2.5.3 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection
mechanism, then both of the following are true:
- (a) Indicate: the selection
mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known),
- (b) Prominence: any accessible template options have prominence that is comparable with that of other options in
the selection mechanism.
Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.5
- B.2.5.4 Templates "AA" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets the level
"AA" Web content accessibility benchmarks when used.
- B.2.5.5 New Templates: If authors can use the authoring tool to create new templates for use by a template selection
mechanism, they have the option to record the accessibility status of the new templates.
- B.2.5.6 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a
repository of templates, then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status.
- B.2.5.7 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true:
- (a) Indicate: the selection
mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known),
- (b) Prominence: any accessible options have prominence that is comparable with that of other options in
the selection mechanism.
- B.2.5.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then
each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status.
Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.5
Appendix D: Acknowledgments
Appendix Editors:
- Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
- Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG
Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:
- Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology)
- Ann McMeekin (Invited Expert)
- Greg Pisocky (Adobe)
- Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
- Andrew Ronksley (Royal National Institute for the Blind)
- Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
- Reed Shaffner (Microsoft)
- Dana Simberkoff (HiSoftware Inc.)
- Jeanne Spellman (W3C)
- Michael Squillace (IBM)
- Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
Other previously active AUWG participants and other contributors to ATAG 2.0:
Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler, Geoff Deering, Barry A. Feigenbaum, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Karen Mardahl, 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.