[Contents] [Implementing]

W3C

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

W3C Editors' Draft 8 March 2011

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110308/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110228/
Editors:
Jan Richards, Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University
Jeanne Spellman, W3C
Jutta Treviranus, Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University
Previous Editors:
Matt May (until June 2005 while at W3C)

Abstract

This specification provides guidelines for designing web content authoring tools that are both (1) more accessible to authors with disabilities and (2) designed to enable, support, and promote the production of accessible web content by all authors.

The "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).

Status of This Document

Editor's Draft of ATAG 2.0

This document is the internal working draft used by the AUWG and is updated continuously and without notice. This document has no formal standing within W3C. Please consult the group's home page and the W3C technical reports index for information about the latest publications by this group.

The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) intends to publish ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Recommendation. Until that time Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0 [ATAG10] is the stable, referenceable version. This Working Draft does not supersede ATAG 1.0.

May be Superseded

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/.

Web Accessibility Initiative

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.

No Endorsement

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.

Patents

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.


Table of Contents


Introduction

This section is informative.

This is a Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version 2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting authoring tool developers to make their authoring tools more accessible to people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech difficulties, and others.

Accessibility, from an authoring tool perspective, includes addressing the needs of two overlapping user groups with disabilities:

It is important to note that, while the requirements for meeting these two sets of user needs are separated for clarity within the guidelines, the accelerating trend toward user-produced content means that, in reality, they are deeply inter-connected. For example, when a user participates in an online forum, they frequently author content that is then incorporated with other content authored by other users. Accessibility problems in either the authoring user interface or the content produced by the other forum users would reduce the overall accessibility of the forum.

Notes:

  1. The term "authoring tools" has a specific definition in ATAG 2.0. The definition, which includes several normative notes, appears in the Glossary.
  2. ATAG 2.0 recommends that authoring tools be capable of producing web content that conforms with WCAG 2.0. However, WCAG 2.0 notes that even content that conforms to the highest level of WCAG 2.0 (i.e. Level AAA) may not be "accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas". Development of authoring tools that address more specialized needs is encouraged, but is beyond the scope of this document.
  3. ATAG 2.0 does not include standard usability recommendations, except where they have a significantly greater impact on people with disabilities than on other people.
  4. Authoring tools are just one aspect of web accessibility. For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see:

ATAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance

The individuals and organizations that may use ATAG 2.0 vary widely and include authoring tool developers, authoring tool users (authors), authoring tool purchasers, and policy makers. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance are provided:

Levels of Conformance

In order to ensure that the process of using ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 together in the development of authoring tools is as simple as possible, ATAG 2.0 shares WCAG 2.0's three level conformance model: Level A (lowest), AA (middle), AAA (highest).

Integration of Accessibility Features

When implementing ATAG 2.0, authoring tool developers should carefully integrate features that support accessible authoring into the same "look-and-feel" as other features of the authoring tool. Close integration has the potential to:


Guidelines

The success criteria and the conformance applicability notes in this section are normative.

PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible

Part A Conformance Applicability Notes:

  1. Scope of "authoring tool user interface": The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are concerned with producing the "included" web content technologies. This includes views of the web content being edited and features that are independent of the content being edited, such as menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences, documentation, etc.
  2. Reflected content accessibility problems: The authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that editing-views display the web content being edited in a way that is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.g. ensuring that text alternatives in the content can be programmatically determined). However, where an accessibility problem is caused directly by the content being edited (e.g. if an image in the content lacks a text alternative), then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface.
  3. Developer control: The Part A success criteria only apply to the authoring tool user interface as it is provided by the developer. It does not apply to any subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g. by plug-ins, user modifications, etc.).
  4. User agent features: Web-based authoring tools may rely on user agent features (e.g. keyboard navigation, find functions, display preferences, undo features, etc.) to satisfy success criteria. If a conformance claim is made, the claim must cite the user agent.
  5. Features for meeting Part A must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.g. documentation, search functions, etc.). The only exemption is for preview features, as long as they meet the relevant success criteria in Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing-views because all authors, including those with disabilities, benefit when preview features accurately reflect the functionality of user agents that are actually in use by end users.

PRINCIPLE A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines

Guideline A.1.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible. [Implementing A.1.1]

Rationale: When authoring tools (or parts of authoring tools) are web-based, conforming to WCAG 2.0 will facilitate access by all authors, including those using assistive technologies.

A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. [Implementing A.1.1.1]
The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

Guideline A.1.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that non-web-based functionality is accessible. [Implementing A.1.2]

Rationale: When authoring tools (or parts of authoring tools) are non-web-based, following existing accessibility guidelines and implementing communication with platform accessibility services facilitates access by all authors, including those using assistive technologies.

A.1.2.1 Accessibility Guidelines: Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform. (Level A) [Implementing A.1.2.1]
Note:
If a conformance claim is made, then the claim must cite the accessibility guidelines followed.

A.1.2.2 Platform Accessibility Services: Non-web-based authoring tools implement communication with platform accessibility services. (Level A) [Implementing A.1.2.2]
Note:
If a conformance claim is made, then the claim must cite the platform accessibility service(s) implemented.

PRINCIPLE A.2: Editing-views must be perceivable

Guideline A.2.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Make alternative content available to authors. [Implementing A.2.1]

Rationale: Some authors require access to alternative content in order to interact with the web content that they are editing.

A.2.1.1 Text Alternatives for Rendered Non-Text Content: If an editing-view renders non-text content with programmatically associated text alternatives, then the text alternatives can be programmatically determined. (Level A) [Implementing A.2.1.1]

A.2.1.2 Alternatives for Rendered Time-Based Media: If an editing-view renders time-based media, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.2.1.2] (a) Alternatives Rendered: alternatives for the time-based content are also rendered; or (b) User Agent Option: authors have the option to preview the time-based content in a user agents that is able to render the alternatives.

Guideline A.2.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Editing-view presentation can be programmatically determined. [Implementing A.2.2]

Rationale: Some authors need access to details about the editing-view presentation, via their assistive technology, when that presentation is used to convey status information (e.g. underlining misspelled words) or provide information about how the end user will experience the web content being edited.

A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information: If an editing-view modifies the presentation to convey status information, then that status information can be programmatically determined. Status information conveyed by modifying the presentation of editing-views may include, but is not limited to, spelling, grammar and syntax errors. (Level A) [Implementing A.2.2.1]

A.2.2.2 Access to Rendered Text Properties: If a text property is both rendered and editable and the property can be communicated by the supported platform accessibility service, then the property is programmatically determinable. (Level A) [Implementing A.2.2.2]

PRINCIPLE A.3: Editing-views must be operable

Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard access to authoring features. [Implementing A.3.1]

Rationale: Some authors with limited mobility or visual disabilities are not able to use a mouse, and instead require keyboard access to all of the functionality of the authoring tool.

A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.1.1]
Note 1:
The path exception relates to the underlying function, not the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input technique (handwriting) requires path-dependent input, but the underlying function (text input) does not. The path exception encompasses other input variables that are continuously sampled from pointing devices, including pressure, speed, and angle.
Note 2:
This success criterion does not forbid and should not discourage providing mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation.

A.3.1.2 No Keyboard Traps: Keyboard traps are prevented as follows: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.1.2](a) In the Authoring Tool User Interface: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, the user is advised of the method for moving focus away; and (b) In Editing-Views that Render Content: If an editing-view renders content (e.g. WYSIWYG view), then a documented keyboard command is provided that moves the editing-view keyboard focus to a known location (e.g. the start of the editing-view).

A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard navigation. (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.1.3]

A.3.1.4 Keyboard Access (Enhanced): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.1.4]

A.3.1.5 Customize Keyboard Access: Keyboard access to the authoring tool can be customized. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.1.5]

A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands: Authoring tool user interface components can be presented with any associated keyboard commands. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.1.6]

Guideline A.3.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide authors with enough time. [Implementing A.3.2]

Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing, operating the mouse, or processing information can be prevented from using systems with short time limits or that require fast reaction speeds, such as clicking on a moving target.

A.3.2.1 Content Edits Saved (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits, then the authoring tool saves all edits made by authors. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.2.1]

A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.2.2] (a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or (b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or (c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g. "press the space bar"), and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or (d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g. a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or (e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or (f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.

A.3.2.3 Static Pointer Targets: Authoring tool user interface components that accept pointer input are either stationary or authors can pause the movement. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.2.3]

A.3.2.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): The authoring tool can be set to automatically save all content edits made by authors. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.2.4]

Guideline A.3.3: (For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures. [Implementing A.3.3]

Rationale: Flashing can cause seizures in authors with photosensitive seizure disorder.

A.3.3.1 Static View Option: Editing-views that render visual time-based content can be paused and can be set to not play automatically. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.3.1]

Guideline A.3.4: (For the authoring tool user interface) Enhance navigation and editing via content structure. [Implementing A.3.4]

Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools make use of the structure present in web content to simplify the tasks of navigation and editing the content.

A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure: If editing-views expose the markup elements in the web content being edited, then the markup elements (e.g., source code, content renderings, etc.) are selectable and navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection focus between elements. (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.4.1]

A.3.4.2 Navigate by Programmatic Relationships: If editing-views allow editing of programmatic relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided that support navigation between the related content. Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the authoring tool, relationships may include, but are not limited to, element nesting, headings, labeling, programmatic definitions, and ID relationships. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.4.2]

Guideline A.3.5: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide text search of the content. [Implementing A.3.5]

Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to use text search to navigate to arbitrary points within the web content being authored.

A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content that meet the following: (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.5.1] (a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes; and
Note: If the current editing-view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing-view to display the results.
(b) Two-way: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and (c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes; and (d) No Match: Authors are informed when no results are found.

Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage preference settings. [Implementing A.3.6]

Rationale: Some authors need to set their own display settings in a way that differs from the presentation that they want to define for the published web content. Providing the ability to save and reload sets of keyboard and display preference settings benefits authors who have needs that differ over time (e.g. due to fatigue).

A.3.6.1 Independence of Display: Authors can set their own display settings for editing-views without affecting the web content to be published. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.6.1]

A.3.6.2 Save Settings: Authoring tool display settings and control settings can be saved between authoring sessions. (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.6.2]

A.3.6.3 Apply Platform Settings: The authoring tool applies platform display settings and control settings. (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.6.3]

A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets: Authors can save and reload multiple sets of any authoring tool display settings and control settings. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.6.4]

A.3.6.5 Assistance with Preferences: The authoring tool includes a mechanism to help authors configure authoring tool display settings and control settings. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.6.5]

Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that previews are as accessible as existing user agents. [Implementing A.3.7]

Rationale: Preview features are provided in many authoring tools because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how user agents will display the web content to end users. Authors with disabilities need the same opportunity to check their work.

A.3.7.1 Preview (Minimum): If a preview is provided, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.7.1] (a) Pre-existing User Agent: The preview makes use of a pre-existing user agent; or (b) UAAG (Level A): The preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A [UAAG].

A.3.7.2 Preview (Enhanced): If a preview is provided, then authors can specify which user agent performs the preview. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.7.2]

PRINCIPLE A.4: Editing-views must be understandable

Guideline A.4.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid and correct mistakes. [Implementing A.4.1]

Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty making fine movements may be prone to making unintended actions.

A.4.1.1 Content Changes Reversible (Minimum): For authoring actions, one of the following are true: (Level A) [Implementing A.4.1.1]
Note 1: Reversing actions (e.g. an "undo" function) are also considered authoring actions, meaning they must also meet this success criterion (e.g., a "redo" function).
Note 2: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions (e.g. typed words, a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.
Note 3: It is acceptable to clear the authoring action history at the end of authoring sessions. (a) Reversible: The authoring action can be immediately reversed; or (b) Warn and Confirm: The authoring tool includes a warning to authors that the action is irreversible and requires authors to confirm the action before proceeding.

A.4.1.2 Setting Changes Reversible: If actions modify authoring tool settings, then one of the following are true: (Level A) [Implementing A.4.1.2] (a) Reversible: The authoring tool setting can be reversed by the same mechanism that made the change; or (b) Warn and Confirm: The authoring tool includes a warning to authors that the action is irreversible and requires authors to confirm the action or save the current settings before proceeding.

A.4.1.3 Content Changes Reversible (Enhanced): Authors can sequentially reverse a series of reversible authoring actions. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.4.1.3]
Note: The notes for A.4.1.1 still apply.

Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility features. [Implementing A.4.2]

Rationale: Some authors may not be able to understand or operate the authoring tool user interface without proper accessible documentation.

A.4.2.1 Document Accessibility Features: All features that must be present to meet Part A of ATAG 2.0 (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.) are documented. (Level A) [Implementing A.4.2.1]
Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.

A.4.2.2 Document All Features: All features of the authoring tool are documented. (Level AA) [Implementing A.4.2.2]
Note: The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.

PART B: Support the production of accessible content

Part B Conformance Applicability Notes:

  1. Author availability: Any Part B success criteria that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions.
  2. Developer control: The Part B success criteria only apply to the authoring tool as it is provided by the developer. This does not include subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g. by plug-ins, user-defined templates, user modifications of default settings, etc.).
  3. Applicability after the end of an authoring session: Authoring tools are responsible for the accessibility of web content that they automatically generate after the end of an author's authoring session (see Success Criterion B.1.1.1). For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a content management system, these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content. Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of content that the author has specified, whether it is author-generated or automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified (e.g. a third-party feed).
  4. Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.g. an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking tool).
  5. Features for meeting Part B must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.g. checking tools, repair tools, tutorials, documentation, etc.).
  6. Multiple author roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles, each with different views and content editing permissions (e.g. a content management system may separate the roles of designers, content authors, and quality assurers). In these cases, the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole, not to the view provided to any particular author role. Accessible content support features should be made available to any author role where it would be useful.

PRINCIPLE B.1: Fully automatic processes must produce accessible content

Guideline B.1.1: Ensure automatically specified content is accessible. [Implementing B.1.1]

Rationale: If authoring tools automatically specify web content that is not accessible, then additional repair tasks are imposed on authors.

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG): Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated for publishing after the end of an authoring session, it is accessible web content (WCAG). [Implementing B.1.1.1]
Note: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content.
The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG): Authors have the default option that, when web content is automatically generated during an authoring session, then one of the following is true: [Implementing B.1.1.2]
Note 1: Automatic generation includes automatically selecting templates for authors.
Note 2:
This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content.
(a) Accessible: The content is accessible web content (WCAG) without author input; or (b) Prompting: During the automatic generation process, authors are prompted for any required accessibility information (WCAG); or (c) Automatic Checking: After the automatic generation process, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or (d) Checking Suggested: After the automatic generation process, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking. The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

Guideline B.1.2: Ensure accessibility information is preserved. [Implementing B.1.2]

Rationale: Accessibility information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility between the input and output of web content transformations.

B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, then at least one of the following is true: [Implementing B.1.2.1]
Note: This success criteria only applies to transformations in which the output technology is an "included" technology for conformance.(a) Preserve: Accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in the output; or (b) Warning: Authors have the default option to be warned that accessibility information may be lost (e.g., when saving a vector graphic into a raster image format); or (c) Automatic Checking: After the transformation, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or (d) Checking Suggested: After the transformation, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking. The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

B.1.2.2 Optimizations Preserve Accessibility: If the authoring tool provides optimizing web content transformations then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the input is preserved in the output. (Level A). [Implementing B.1.2.2]

B.1.2.3 Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved: If the authoring tool provides web content transformations that preserve non-text content in the output, then any text alternatives for that non-text content are also preserved, if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output. (Level A). [Implementing B.1.2.3]

PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in producing accessible content

Guideline B.2.1: Ensure accessible content production is possible. [Implementing B.2.1]

Rationale: For the purposes of this document, WCAG 2.0 defines the accessible web content (WCAG) requirements. To support accessible web content production, at minimum, it must be possible to produce web content that conforms with WCAG 2.0 using the authoring tool.

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG): If the authoring tool places restrictions on the web content that authors can specify, then those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met: [Implementing B.2.1.1] The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria can be met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria can be met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria can be met (Level AAA).

Guideline B.2.2: Guide authors to produce accessible content. [Implementing B.2.2]

Rationale: By guiding authors from the outset toward the creation and maintenance of accessible web content (WCAG) , web content accessibility problems (WCAG) are mitigated and less repair effort is required.

B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g. styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not. (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2.1] The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides mechanisms to set web content properties (e.g. attribute values, etc.), then mechanisms are also provided to set web content properties related to accessibility information (WCAG): [Implementing B.2.2.2]
Note: Success Criterion B.4.1.4 addresses the prominence of the mechanisms. The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

B.2.2.3 Technology Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of producing a web content technology for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content, then both of the following are true: (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2.3]
(a) Warning: Authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content for that technology; and
(b) List: From the warning, authors can access a list of technologies for which the authoring tool does provide support for the production of accessible content.

Guideline B.2.3: Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content. [Implementing B.2.3]

Rationale: Improperly generated alternative content can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.

See Also: This guideline applies when non-text content is specified by authors (e.g. inserts an image). When non-text content is automatically added by the authoring tool, see Guideline B.1.1.

B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): Authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content. (Level A). [Implementing B.2.3.1]
The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions: During the authoring session, the authoring tool may only automatically suggest programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content under the following conditions: (Level A) [Implementing B.2.3.2] (a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested text alternatives prior to insertion; and (b) Relevant Sources: The suggested text alternatives are only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g. suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).

B.2.3.3 Let User Agents Repair: The authoring tool avoids repairing programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content using any text value that would also be available to user agents (e.g. do not use the image filename). (Level A) [Implementing B.2.3.3]

B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse: When authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, both of the following are true: (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.3.4] (a) Save and Suggest: the text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and (b) Edit Option: the author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.

Guideline B.2.4: Assist authors with accessible templates. [Implementing B.2.4]

Rationale: Providing accessible templates and other pre-authored content (e.g. clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.) can have several benefits, including: immediately improving the accessibility of web content being edited, reducing the effort required of authors, and demonstrating the importance of accessible web content (WCAG) .

B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses. (Level A) [Implementing B.2.4.1]

B.2.4.2 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.4.2] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and (b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.

B.2.4.3 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. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.4.3]

B.2.4.4 Template Accessibility Status: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates, then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.4.4]

Guideline B.2.5: Assist authors with accessible pre-authored content. [Implementing B.2.5]

Rationale: Providing accessible templates and other pre-authored content (e.g. clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.) can have several benefits, including: immediately improving the accessibility of web content being edited, reducing the effort required of authors, and demonstrating the importance of accessible web content (WCAG).

B.2.5.1 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: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.1] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and (b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.

B.2.5.2 Pre-Authored Content Accessibility Status: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.5.2]

PRINCIPLE B.3: Authors must be supported in improving the accessibility of existing content

Guideline B.3.1: Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. [Implementing B.3.1]

Rationale: Accessibility checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool helps make authors aware of web content accessibility problems during the authoring process, so they can be immediately addressed.

B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking for that success criterion is provided (e.g. an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions). [Implementing B.3.1.1]
Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. However, manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In manual checking, the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems, which authors must carry out by themselves. For more information on checking, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation. The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide: For checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e. manual checking and semi-automated checking), instructions are provided from the check that describe how to make the decision. (Level A) [Implementing B.3.1.2]

B.3.1.3 Help Authors Locate: For checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e. manual checking and semi-automated checking), the relevant content is identified to the authors. (Level A) [Implementing B.3.1.3]
Note: Depending on the nature of the editing-view and the scope of the potential web content accessibility problem, identification might involve highlighting elements or renderings of elements, displaying line numbers, or providing instructions.

B.3.1.4 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA) [Implementing B.3.1.4]
Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc.

B.3.1.5 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata. (Level AA) [Implementing B.3.1.5]
Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.g. specific check results, summary conformance claims, etc.)

Guideline B.3.2: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. [Implementing B.2.3]

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.

B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG): If checking (see Success Criterion B.3.1.1) can detect that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is not met, then repair suggestion(s) are provided: [Implementing B.3.2.1]
Note: Automatedand semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. However, manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In manual repair, the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems, which authors must carry out by themselves. For more information on repair, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation. The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

PRINCIPLE B.4: Authoring tools must promote and integrate their accessibility features

Guideline B.4.1: Ensure the availability of features that support the production of accessible content. [Implementing B.4.1]

Rationale: The accessible content support features will be more likely to be used if they are turned on and are afforded reasonable prominence within the authoring tool user interface.

B.4.1.1 Features Active by Default: All accessible content support features are turned on by default. (Level A) [Implementing B.4.1.1]

B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features: If authors can turn off an accessible content support feature, then they can turn the feature back on. (Level A) [Implementing B.4.1.2]

B.4.1.3 Feature Deactivation Warning: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature, then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems. (Level AA) [Implementing B.4.1.3]

B.4.1.4 Feature Prominence: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e.g. invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA) [Implementing B.4.1.4]

Guideline B.4.2: Ensure that documentation promotes the production of accessible content. [Implementing B.4.2]

Rationale: Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.g. prompts for text alternatives, accessibility checking tools), some authors may not be able to use them. Demonstrating accessible authoring as routine practice will encourage its acceptance by some authors.

B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG): A range of examples in the documentation (e.g. markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrate accessible authoring practices that meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria: [Implementing B.4.2.1] The WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria are met (Level A); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A and Level AA success criteria are met (Level AA); or
The WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA, and Level AAA success criteria are met (Level AAA).

B.4.2.2 Feature Instructions: Instructions for using the accessible content support features appear in the documentation. (Level A) [Implementing B.4.2.2]

B.4.2.3 Tutorial: A tutorial on an accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.4.2.3]

B.4.2.4 Instruction Index: The documentation contains an index to the instructions for using the accessible content support features. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.4.2.4]

 


Conformance

This section is normative.

Conformance means that the authoring tool satisfies the applicable success criteria defined in the guidelines section. This conformance section describes conformance and lists the conformance requirements.

Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

Because WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20] is the most recent W3C Recommendation regarding web content accessibility, ATAG 2.0 frequently refers to WCAG 2.0 in order to set requirements for (1) the accessibility of web-based authoring tool user interfaces (in Part A) and (2) how authors should be enabled, supported, and guided toward producing web content that is accessible to end users with disabilities (in Part B).

Whenever success criteria or defined terms in ATAG 2.0 depend on WCAG 2.0, they are marked with "(WCAG)".

Note on "accessibility-supported ways of using technologies":

Part of conformance to WCAG 2.0 is the requirement that "only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported." In broad terms, WCAG 2.0 considers a web content technology to be "accessibility supported" when (1) the way that the web content technology is used is supported by users' assistive technology and (2) the web content technology has accessibility-supported user agents that are available to end users.

This concept is not easily extended to authoring tools because many authoring tools can be installed and used in a variety of environments with differing availabilities for assistive technologies and user agents (e.g. private intranets versus public websites, monolingual sites versus multilingual sites, etc.). Therefore:

For the purposes of ATAG 2.0 conformance, the accessibility-supported requirement is waived.

Once an authoring tool has been installed and put into use, it would be possible to assess the WCAG 2.0 conformance of the web content that the authoring tool produces, including whether the WCAG 2.0 accessibility-supported requirement is met. However, this WCAG 2.0 conformance assessment would be completely independent of the authoring tool's conformance with ATAG 2.0.

Applicability of Success Criteria

The ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool is inclusive and, as such, it covers software with a wide range of capabilities and contexts of operation. In order to take into account authoring tools with limited feature sets (e.g., a photo editor, a CSS editor, a status update field in a social networking application, etc.), many of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are conditional, applying only to authoring tools with the given features(s) (e.g., Success Criterion B.1.1.1 applies only to authoring tools that automatically generate web content after the end of authoring sessions).

If a conformance claim is made, a declaration that a success criterion is not applicable requires a rationale.

Conformance Requirements

In order for an authoring tool to conform to ATAG 2.0, all of the following conformance requirements must be satisfied:

Conformance Levels:

Authoring tools may conform "fully" or "partially" to ATAG 2.0. In either case, the level of conformance depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied.

"Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have considered the accessibility of the authoring tools from both the perspective of authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible) and the perspective of end users of web content produced by the authoring tools (Part B: Support the production of accessible content):

  1. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level A
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A success criteria.
  2. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AA
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A and Level AA success criteria.
  3. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AAA
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable success criteria.

And the Part A Conformance Applicability Notes and Part B Conformance Applicability Notes have been applied.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Authoring Tool User Interface: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the authoring tool to authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible):

  1. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level A: Authoring Tool User Interface
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A success criteria in Part A. Nothing is implied about Part B.
  2. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AA: Authoring Tool User Interface
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part A. Nothing is implied about Part B.
  3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AAA: Authoring Tool User Interface
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable success criteria in Part A. Nothing is implied about Part B.

And the Part A Conformance Applicability Notes have been applied.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Content Production: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the web content produced by the authoring tool to end users (Part B: Support the production of accessible content):

  1. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level A: Content Production
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A success criteria in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.
  2. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AA: Content Production
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.
  3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AAA: Content Production
    The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable success criteria in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.

And the Part B Conformance Applicability Notes have been applied.

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 only as a step toward "Full" Conformance.

Web Content Technologies Produced:

Authoring tools conform to ATAG 2.0 with respect to the production of specific web content technologies (e.g. Full Level A conformance with respect to the production of XHTML 1.0, Partial Level AA Conformance: Content Production with respect to the production of SVG 1.1).

If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies, then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automatically-generated content or sets as the default for author-generated content. The subset may include "interim" formats that are not intended for publishing to end users, but this is not required.

When Success Criterion B.2.1.1 refers to web content technologies for which the authoring tool provides support for the production of accessible content, it is referring to this subset.

Live publishing authoring tools:

ATAG 2.0 may be applied to authoring tools with workflows that involve live authoring of web content (e.g. some collaborative tools). Due to the challenges inherent in real-time publishing, conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 for these authoring tools may involve some combination of support before (e.g. support in preparing accessible slides), during (e.g. live captioning as WCAG 2.0 requires at Level AA) and after the live authoring session (e.g. the ability to add a transcript to the archive of a presentation that was initially published in real-time). For more information, see the Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix E: Authoring Tools for Live Web Content.

Conformance Claims (Optional)

If a conformance claim is made, then the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information (authoring tools can conform to ATAG 2.0 without making a claim). Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation.

Conditions on Conformance Claims

  1. At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting Level A of WCAG 2.0. A suggested metadata description for this document is "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".
  2. Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g. product information web site), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included.
  3. The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity.
  4. Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims and keeping claims up to date.

Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

  1. Claimant name and affiliation.
  2. Date of the claim.
  3. Guidelines title, version andURI
  4. Conformance level satisfied.
  5. Authoring tool information: The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e.g. vendor name, version number (or version range), required patches or updates, human language of the user interface or documentation).
    • Note: 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. As stated above, the Claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim, not the developer of any of the software components.
  6. Web content technologies produced.
    • A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is including in the conformance claim. For each web content technology, provide information on how the web content technology might be used to create accessible web content (e.g. provide links to technology-specific techniques).
    • A list of any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is not including in the conformance claim.
  7. Declarations: For each success criterion:
    • A declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied; or
    • A declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not.
  8. Platform(s): The platform(s) upon which the authoring tool was evaluated:

Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

  1. A description of the authoring tool that identifies the types of editing-views that it includes.
  2. A description of how the ATAG 2.0 success criteria were met where this may not be obvious.

"Progress Toward 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 toward 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 toward, rather than one already satisfied, and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. The author of a "Progress Toward 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

Neither W3C, WAI, nor AUWG take any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance claim that has not been published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or AUWG.


Appendix AF: Glossary

This section is normative.

This appendix contains definitions for all of the significant/important/unfamiliar terms used in the normative parts of this specification, including terms used in the Conformance section. Please consult http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ for more information on the role of definitions in specification quality.

accessibility problems
ATAG 2.0 recognizes two types of accessibility problems:
  • authoring tool user interface accessibility problems: Aspects of an authoring tool user interface that does not meet a success criterion in Part A of ATAG 2.0.
  • web content accessibility problems (WCAG): Aspects of web content that does not meet a WCAG 2.0 success criterion (Level A, AA or AAA).
accessibility information (WCAG)
Any information that web content must contain in order to meet a WCAG 2.0 success criterion (Level A, AA or AAA). Examples include: programmatically associated alternative content (e.g. text alternatives for images), role and state information for widgets, relationships within complex tables).
accessible content support features
Any features of an authoring tool that directly support authors in increasing the accessibility of the web content being edited. These are features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B of ATAG 2.0.
alternative content
Web content that is used in place of other content that some people are not able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. WCAG 2.0 recognizes several general types of alternative content (for more information see WCAG 2.0):
  • text alternatives for non-text content: Text that is programmatically associated with non-text content or referred to from text that is programmatically associated with non-text content. For example, an image of a chart might have two text alternatives: a description in the paragraph after the chart and a short text alternative for the chart indicating in words that a description follows.
  • alternatives for time-based media: Web content that serves the same function or purpose as one or more tracks in a time based media presentation. This includes: captions, audio descriptions, extended audio descriptions, sign language interpretation as well as correctly sequenced text descriptions of time-based visual and auditory information that also is capable of achieving the outcomes of any interactivity in the time-based presentation.
  • media alternative for text: Media that presents no more information than is already presented in text (directly or via text alternatives). A media alternative for text is provided for those who benefit from alternate representations of text. Media alternatives for text may be audio-only, video-only (including sign-language video), or audio-video.
Importantly, from the perspective of authoring tools, alternative content may or may not be:
  • programmatically associated: Alternative content whose location and purpose can be programmatically determined from the original content for which it is serving as an alternative. For example, a paragraph might serve as a text alternative for an image, but it is only programmatically associated if this relationship is properly encoded (e.g. by "aria-labeledby").
Note: ATAG 2.0 typically refers to programmatically associated alternative content.
ASCII art
A picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).
assistive technology
Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features. Examples include:
  • screen magnifiers, and other visual reading assistants, which are used by people with visual, perceptual and physical print disabilities to change text font, size, spacing, color, synchronization with speech, etc. in order improve the visual readability of rendered text and images;
  • screen readers, which are used by people who are blind to read textual information through synthesized speech or Braille;
  • text-to-speech software, which is used by some people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities to convert text into synthetic speech;
  • speech recognition software, which may be used by people who have some physical disabilities;
  • alternative keyboards, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers, single switches, sip/puff and other special input devices);
  • alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations.
audio
The technology of sound reproduction. Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis), recorded from real-world sounds, or both.
author actions preventing generation of accessible web content
When the actions of authors prevents authoring tools from generating accessible web content (WCAG). Examples include: turning off accessibility options, ignoring prompts for accessibility information (WCAG), providing faulty accessibility information (WCAG) at prompts, modifying the authoring tool (e.g., via scripting, macros, etc.), and installing plug-ins.
authors
People who use authoring tools to create or modify web content. The term may cover roles such as content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. (see also Part B Conformance Applicability Note 6: Multiple author roles). Some authoring tools control who may be an author by managing author permissions.
author permission
Authorization that allows modification of given web content.
authoring action
Any action that authors can take using the authoring tool user interface that results in creating or editing web content (e.g. typing text, deleting, inserting an element, applying a template). Most authoring tool user interfaces also enable actions that do not edit content (e.g. saving, publishing, setting preferences, viewing documentation).
authoring outcome
The content or content modifications that result from authoring actions. Authoring outcomes are cumulative (e.g. text is entered, then styled, then made into a link, then given a title).
authoring practice
An approach that authors follow to achieve a given authoring outcome. (e.g. controlling presentation with style sheets). Depending on the design of an authoring tool, authoring practices may be chosen by the authors or by the authoring tool. Authoring practices may or may not be:
authoring session
A state of the authoring tool in which web content can be edited by an author.
  • end of an authoring session: The point at which the author has no further opportunity to make changes without starting another session. The end of an authoring session may be determined by authors (e.g. closing a document, publishing) or by the authoring tool (e.g. when the authoring tool transfers editing permission to another author on a collaborative system). Note that the end of the authoring session is distinct from publishing. Automatic content generation may continue after the end of both the authoring session and initial publishing (e.g. content management system updates).
authoring tool
Any software (or collection of software components) that can be used by authors (alone or collaboratively) to create or modify web content for use by other people (other authors or end users).
Note 1: "collection of software components": Multiple applications, plug-ins, etc. can be used together to meet ATAG 2.0 (see also note in the "Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim").
Note 2: "alone or collaboratively":
Multiple authors may contribute to the creation of web content and, depending on the authoring tool, each author may work with different views of the content and different author permissions.
Note 3: "to create or modify web content":
This clause rules out software that collects data from a person for other purposes (e.g., online grocery order form) and then creates web content from that data (e.g., a web-based warehouse order) without informing the person (however, WCAG 2.0 would still apply). This clause also rules out software used to create content exclusively in non-web content technologies.
Note 4: "for use by other people":
This clause rules out the many web applications that allow people to modify web content that only they themselves experience (e.g., web-based email display settings) or that only provide input to automated processes (e.g., library catalog search page).
Examples of software that are generally considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0:
  • web page authoring tools (e.g. WYSIWYG HTML editors)
  • software for directly editing source code
  • software for converting to web content technologies (e.g. "Save as HTML" features in office document applications)
  • integrated development environments (e.g. for web application development)
  • software that generates web content on the basis of templates, scripts, command-line input or "wizard"-type processes
  • software for rapidly updating portions of web pages (e.g. blogging, wikis, online forums)
  • software for generating/managing entire web sites (e.g. content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators)
  • email clients that send messages in web content technologies
  • multimedia authoring tools
  • software for creating mobile web applications
Examples of software that are not considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0 (in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):
  • customizable personal portals: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the web content being edited is only available to the owner of the portal
  • e-commerce order forms: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the purpose of an e-commerce order form is to order a product, not communicate with other people via web content, even if the data collected by the form actually does result in web content (e.g., online tracking pages, etc.)
  • stand-alone accessibility checkers: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because a stand-alone accessibility checker with no automated or semi-automated repair functionality does not actually modify web content. An accessibility checker with repair functionality or that is considered as part of a larger authoring process would be considered an authoring tool.
authoring tool user interface
The display and control mechanism that authors use to operate the authoring tool software. User interfaces may be non-web-based or web-based or a combination (e.g. a non-web-based authoring tool might have web-based help pages):
  • authoring tool user interface (non-web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are not implemented as web content and instead run directly on a platform that is not a user agent, such as Windows, Mac OS, Java Virtual Machine, etc.
  • authoring tool user interface (web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are implemented using web content technologies and are accessed by authors via a user agent.
Authoring tool user interfaces may or may not be:
  • accessible authoring tool user interfaces: Authoring tool user interfaces that meet the success criteria of a level in Part A of ATAG 2.0.
checking, accessibility
The process by which web content is evaluated for web content accessibility problems (WCAG). ATAG 2.0 recognizes three types of checking, based on increasing levels of automation of the tests:
  • manual checking: Checking in which the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure.
  • semi-automated checking: Checking in which the tests are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the tests.
  • automated checking: Checking in which the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors. An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types.
collection of software components
Any software programs that are used either 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 software components.
content (web content)
Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the end user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions. In ATAG 2.0, the term is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool. Content produced by authoring tools may include web applications, including those that act as web-based authoring tools. Content may or may not be:
content properties
The individual pieces of information that make up the web content (e.g. the attributes and contents of elements, stylesheet information, etc.).
content (structured)
Web content that includes machine-readable internal structure (e.g. markup elements), as opposed to unstructured content, such as raster image formats or plain human language text.
content generation (content authoring, content editing)
The act of specifying the web content to be rendered, played or executed by user agents (also may be referred to as "content authoring" or "content editing"). This may refer to information perceived by end users or to instructions for the user agents. Content may be author generated or automatically generated: In some cases, responsibility for content generation is shared. For example, an author requests an interactive object be placed on their page (e.g. a photo album), the authoring tool applies a template, but the template requires input from the author to be complete.
content rendering
User interface functionality that authoring tools present if they render, play or execute the web content being edited. ATAG 2.0 recognizes several types of content renderings:
  • conventional renderings (or "WYSIWYG"): When content is rendered in a way that is similar to the default rendering a user agent would create from the same content. While "WYSIWYG", standing for "What-you-see-is-what-you-get" is the common term, differences between user agents and end user settings mean that in reality there is no single typical end user experience; or
  • unconventional renderings: When content is rendered differently than it would be in a typical user agent (e.g. rendering an audio file as a graphical wavefront); or
  • partial renderings: When some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or executed, but not others (e.g. a frame-by-frame video editor renders the graphical, but not the timing aspects, of a video).
content transformations
Processes that take content in one web content technology or non-web content technology (e.g. a word processing format) as input and produce content that has been either:
  • optimized: e.g. removing whitespace, re-compressing images; or
  • restructured: e.g. linearizing tables, splitting a document into pages; or
  • re-coded: e.g. HTML to XHTML, a word processing format to HTML.
control settings
Settings that relate to how authors operate the authoring tool, for example using the keyboard or mouse.
developer
Any entities or individuals responsible for programming the authoring tool. This includes the programmers of any additional software components included by the Claimant in the conformance claim. In some cases, development of the authoring tool is complete before authors can use it to publish web content. However, in other cases (e.g. some web-based authoring tools), the developer may continue to modify the authoring tool even after content has been published, such that the content experienced by the end user is modified.
direct accessibility features
Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet the requirements of authors with disabilities (e.g. keyboard navigation, zoom features, text-to-speech). Additional or specialized functionality may still be provided by external assistive technology.
display settings
Settings that relate to how authors perceive the authoring tool. These include:
  • audio display settings: the characteristics of audio output of music, sounds and speech. Examples include volume, speech voices, voice speed, and voice emphasis.
  • visual display settings: the characteristics of the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. Examples include fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.
  • tactile display settings: the characteristics of haptic output. Examples include the magnitude of the haptic forces and the types of vibration.
documentation
Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, sample work flows, tutorials, etc.
document object
The internal representation of data in the source by a non-web based authoring tool or user agent. The document object may form part of a platform accessibility service that enables communication with assistive technologies. Web-based authoring tools are considered to make use of the document object that is maintained by the user agent.
element
A pair of markup tags and its content, or an "empty tag" (one that requires no closing tag or content).
end user
A person who interacts with web content once it has been authored. This includes people using assistive technologies.
human language
Language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means) to communicate with humans.
informative
For information purposes and not required for conformance.
keyboard interface
An interface used by software to obtain keystroke input. A keyboard interface can allows keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a conventional keyboard (e.g. a touchscreen PDA can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected). Keyboard-operated mouse emulators, such as MouseKeys, do not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because these emulators use pointing device interfaces, not keyboard interfaces.
keyboard trap
A user interface situation in which a keyboard interface may be used to move focus to, but not from, a component or group of components.
label
Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to users to identify a component. A label is presented to all users whereas the name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. In many (but not all) cases the name and the label are the same.
live
Information captured from a real-world event that is published with no more than a broadcast delay.
Note: A broadcast delay is a short (usually automated) delay, for example used in order to give the broadcaster time to queue or censor the audio (or video) feed, but not sufficient to allow significant editing.
markup language
A system of text annotations (e.g. elements in HTML) and processing rules that may be used to specify the structure, presentation or semantics of content. Examples of markup languages include HTML and SVG.
  • markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content.
name
Text by which software can identify a component to the author or end user. The name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology, whereas a label is presented to all users. In many (but not all) cases, the label and the name are the same.
non-text content
Any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters), emoticons, and images representing text.
normative
Required for conformance. One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to ATAG 2.0. Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance.
option
When an author is presented with choices.
  • default option: A setting or value for an option that is assigned automatically by the authoring tool and remains in effect unless canceled or changed by the author.
platform
The software environment within which the authoring tool operates. In the case of web-based authoring user interfaces, this will be user agents. In the case of non-web-based user interfaces this will be operating systems (e.g. Windows, Mac OS, Linux), virtual machines (e.g. JVM), etc.
platform accessibility service
A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e.g. MSAA, IAccessible2 and UI Automation for Windows applications, AXAPI for Mac OSX applications, Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome applications, Java Access for Java applications, etc.). On some platforms, it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object.
plug-in
A program that runs as part of the authoring tool (e.g. a third-party checking and repair tool) and that is not part of web content being edited. Authors generally choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.
presentation
Rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by authors or end users.
programmatically determined (programmatically determinable)
Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the information in different modalities. ATAG 2.0 uses this term in two contexts:
prominence
A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (e.g. single component, groups of components, text messages) in a user interface that they are operating. Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual properties (e.g. size, spacing, color), and even the modality of use (e.g. mouse vs. keyboard use).
  • at least as prominent: For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be "at least as prominent" as item B if:
    1. both items occur in the same item container (e.g. a menu for menu items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes);
    2. if item B is emphasized, then so is item A; and
    3. item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows item B.
prompt
Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors. Well designed prompting will urge, suggest, and encourage authors.
publishing
Any point at which the authors or authoring tool make web content available to end users (e.g. uploading a web page, committing a change in a wiki, live streaming).
relationships
Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content.
repairing (accessibility)
The process by which web content accessibility problems that have been identified within web content are resolved. ATAG 2.0 recognizes three types of repairing, based on increasing levels of automation:
  • manual repairing: Where the repairs are carried out by authors. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure;
  • semi-automated repairing: Where the repairs are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to complete the repair; and
  • automated repairing: Where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors.
reversible actions
Authoring actions that, by their nature, can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was in before the action. The opposite of reversible actions are:
  • irreversible actions: Actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with.
role
Text or a number by which software can identify the function of a component within web content (e.g. a string that indicates whether an image functions as a hyperlink, command button, or check box).
sequential keyboard navigation
Using a keyboard interface to navigate one-by-one through all of the items in an ordered set (e.g. menu items, form fields, etc.). This is in contrast to direct navigation methods such as keyboard shortcuts and bypass links.
technology (web content)
A mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents. Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic web applications. Some common examples of web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, Silverlight, Flex and JavaScript.
templates
Content patterns that are filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users (e.g. document templates, content management templates, presentation themes). Often templates will pre-specify at least some authoring decisions.
  • accessible templates (WCAG): Templates that the author or authoring tool can use to create web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria at a particular level (Level A, AA or AAA) under both of the following conditions:
    1. Authors correctly follow the minimum instructions associated with the template, including providing complete and correct information when requested (e.g., by responding to prompts, replacing highlighted placeholders, etc.); and
    2. No further authoring occurs (e.g., a "blank" document template would be assessed only on the basis of the resulting blank web content).
template selection mechanism
A function beyond standard file selection that allows authors to select templates to use as the basis for new content or to apply to existing content.
tutorial
A type of documentation that provides step-by-step instructions for performing multi-part tasks.
user agent
Any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with web content. Examples include web browsers, browser plug-ins, and media players.
user interface component
A part of the user interface or content display (including content renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a distinct function.
video
The technology of moving pictures or images. Video can be made up of animated or photographic images, or both.
view
A user interface function that authors use to interact with the web content being edited. ATAG 2.0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing:
  • editing-views: View in which some or all of the content is editable; or
  • previews: Views in which none of the content is editable. Often the purpose is to present content as it would appear in a user agent.
ATAG 2.0 also recognizes several approaches to presenting the content in a view:
workflow
A customary sequence of steps or tasks that authors follow to produce a content deliverable. If an authoring tool is composed of a collection of software components, then its workflows may include use of one or more of the components.

Appendix B: How to refer to ATAG 2.0 from other documents

This section is informative.

There are two recommended ways to refer to the "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (and to W3C documents in general):

  1. 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/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110308/
  2. 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/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20110308/">
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0,"</a></cite>
J. Richards, J. Spellman, J. Treviranus, eds.,
W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.
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.


Appendix CG: References

This section is informative.

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.

[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/.
[UAAG]
"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, E. Hansen, eds.17 December 2002. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/.
[WCAG20]
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 ", B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, and G. Vanderheiden.

Appendix DH: Acknowledgments

Appendix Editors:

Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:

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, Matt May, Charles McCathieNevile, Ann McMeekin, Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Dana Simberkoff, Reed Shaffner, Michael Squillace, 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, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) under contract number ED-OSE-10-C-0067. 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.


Appendix E: Checklist


Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0


[Contents]