This section describes the status of this document at the time of its
publication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status of
this document series is maintained at the W3C.
This document is an informative appendix to the working draft document Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines "Wombat" Working
Group Internal Draft, 30 May 2001. For more information please consult
that document.
This document is an attempt to reflect the consensus of the Authoring Tool
working group, but has not been endorsed by that group, the W3C or any of its
members. It is inappropriate to reference this document as other than
work-in-progress.
A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents
including Working Drafts and Notes can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.
Priority 1 Checkpoints:
- 1.1 Ensure that the author can
produce accessible
content in the markup language(s) supported by
the tool. [Priority 1]
- The minimum requirement is that the author can add or edit any
elements or element properties of the language that can enhance
accessibility. One common way to minimally satisfy this is by allowing
editing of document source (but see guideline 5). A more advanced tool
will provide an integrated interface to properties affecting
accessibility (see also checkpoint 7.2)
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.1
- 1.2 Ensure that the tool
preserves all accessibility information during transformations,
and conversions. [Priority 1]
- The minimum requirement is to ensure that all information provided in
the pre-conversion document or fragment is provided in the result. It is
possible that this is not reversible. More advanced implementations will
use markup, or some other mechanism to record the transformation and
ensure reversibility. Note that this checkpoint covers importing from a
format the tool does not use.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.2
- 2.2 Ensure that markup which the
tool automatically generates is valid for the language the tool is
generating. [Priority 1]
- This is necessary for user agents to be able to render Web
content in a manner appropriate to a particular user's needs.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 2.2
- 3.3 Do
not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not reuse
previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when
the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]
- The function of an object may be "known with
certainty" when the object is placed by the tool for a specific purpose
or the user has defined a purpose. For example, if a tool automatically
generates a navigation bar for all pages on a site, it is acceptable to
propagate the text
equivalent(s) for images that link to searching, the table of
contents, etc. When a new object is inserted and the function is
unknown, the tool should prompt the author to enter an appropriate equivalent
alternative without providing a default entry, such as the file name. A
default entry should only be offered if it is human authored and has
been previously associated with the object by the author or within a
pre-packaged directory for the tool (ex. clip art gallery). Refer also
to checkpoint 1.4 and checkpoint 3.4.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.3
- 6.1
Document all features that promote the production of accessible content.
[Priority 1]
- This checkpoint promotes the production of accessible content by
helping authors learn how to use the accessibility related features of
the tool. At minimum, the tool should include documentation explaining
the purpose and use each of these features. More advanced
implementations might provide context-senstive links to this content
from within the authoring tool user interface.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.1
- 7.1 Ensure that the authoring
interface follows all operating environment conventions that benefit
accessibility [Priority 1] for standards and conventions that are essential
to accessibility
- This checkpoint requires all aspects of the authoring interface to be
accessible to the author. This wide scope means that the checkpoint
applies to the implementation of all the other checkpoints in this
guidelines document. The techniques for this checkpoint include
references to checklists and guidelines for a number of platforms and to
general guidelines for accessible applications. In many cases
several sets of standards will be applicable.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.1
- 7.2 Ensure
that the authoring interface enables accessible editing of all element and object properties. [Priority 1]
- This checkpoint is a special case of checkpoint 7.1 that is especially
important to authoring tools. At minimum, the checkpoint requires at
least one accessible way to edit every element and object property
supported by the tool. More advanced implementations might ensure that
all of the ways in which the tool allows element and object properties
to be edited should be accessible.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.2
- 7.4 Allow the display preferences
of the authoring interface to be changed without affecting the document markup.
[Priority 1]
- This checkpoint applies primarily to WYSIWYG markup editing tools and
requires that the author be able to view the content, as it is being
authored, in a way that differs from the presumed default appearance of
the rendered content. At minimum there must be some mechanism for
changing the document display independently of the document markup.
There are a number of ways that this can be achieved, including
supporting operating environment display preferences and allowing the
author to specify an editing style sheet that is different from those
included with the end document. In addition, there must be some means by
which textual alternatives can be displayed to the author in place of
non-text elements.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.4
Relative priority checkpoints:
- 1.3 Ensure that when the tool
automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]
- Any decisions made for the author by the tool should optimize the
accessibility of the content (as per WCAG). This applies to the choice
of markup type, file type, and markup practices. The author may be able
to override the choices proposed or made by the tool.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.3
- 1.4 Ensure that all
pre-authored content for the tool conforms to Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]
- For example, templates must include accessible markup and content.
Images and multimedia libraries must include accessible alternatives,
such as alt text and long descriptions for images and captions, auditory
descriptions and collated text transcriptions for movies. Applets and
scripts must be accessible and include functional alternatives.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.4
- 3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative
information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text
transcripts for video). [Relative Priority]
- At times appropriate to the author-tool interaction, ask for (and
support the creation of) alternate text, captions, auditory
descriptions, collated text transcripts for video, etc.
Note: Some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.1
- 3.2 Help the author create
structured content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]
- Note: Some checkpoints in Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.2
- 4.1
Check for and inform the author of accessibility
problems. [Relative Priority]
- At a minimum, prompt the author to manually check for specific
problems. Ideally, the checks should be automated to the greatest extent
possible..
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.1
- 4.2 Assist authors in
correcting accessibility problems.
[Relative Priority]
- At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with
the accessibility checking required by checkpoint 4.1.
Ideally, the author should be guided by examples, guidelines and
automated tools.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.2
Priority 2 Checkpoints:
- 1.5 Allow the author to preserve
markup not recognized by the tool. [Priority 2]
- At minimum, prompt the author to confirm before removing or changing
unrecognised markup. Note that it may not be possible for the tool to
continue processing a document. More advanced implementations may
integrate this with the checking and repair functions of guideline 4,
allowing the author finer-grained control.
Note: The author may have included or imported
markup that enhances accessibility but is not recognized by the
tool.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.5
- 2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they
are available and appropriate for a task. [Priority 2]
- W3C specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that
they do not compromise accessibility, and where possible, they enhance
it. If the markup does not conform to W3C Recommendations, inform the
author.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 2.1
- 5.1
Ensure that all functionality (prompts, checkers, information icons, etc.)
related to accessible authoring
practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the
tool. [Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 5.1
- 5.2 Ensure
that accessible authoring
practices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] Priority 1
checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author.
[Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 5.2
- 6.2 Ensure that creating
accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation,
including examples. [Priority 2]
- This checkpoint promotes the production of accessible content by
implicitly demonstrating to the author that all content, regardless of
purpose, should comply with the WCAG guidelines [@@Issue - to what level?]. At minimum, all
documented examples of the authoring tool interface (i.e. dialog boxes,
code views, etc.) should include any relevant accessible authoring
practices.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.2
- 7.1 Ensure that the authoring
interface follows all operating environment conventions that benefit
accessibility [Priority 2] for standards and conventions that are important
to accessibility
- This checkpoint requires all aspects of the authoring interface to be
accessible to the author. This wide scope means that the checkpoint
applies to the implementation of all the other checkpoints in this
guidelines document. The techniques for this checkpoint include
references to checklists and guidelines for a number of platforms and to
general guidelines for accessible applications. In many cases
several sets of standards will be applicable.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.1
- 7.3
Ensure that the authoring interface enables the author to edit the structure
of the document [Priority 2]
- This checkpoint is a special case of checkpoint 7.1 that is especially
important to authoring tools. At minimum, the checkpoint requires that
the author be able to copy, cut or paste an element and its content at
any level of the document tree hierarchy. More advanced implementations
might provide more powerful ways to edit elements or groups of elements
in the structure.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.3
- 7.5
Ensure that the authoring interface enables accessible navigation of editing views via the
document structure. [Priority 2 (was P1 in ATAG10)]
- This checkpoint requires that tools make use of the structure of the
documents being edited, in order to simplify navigation for the author.
At minimum, the author should be able to move from element to element.
More advanced implementations might provide highly flexible mechanisms
that take advantage of the hierarchical nature of the document
tree.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.5
- 7.6 Ensure the authoring interface allows
the author to search within the editing views. [Priority 2]
- This checkpoint requires that tools provide a search facility. While
this is a common feature in most text markup editing tools, it is less
common for other authoring tools (i.e. SVG and editors). At minimum, the
tool should allow basic text search. More advanced implementations might
have more powerful mechanisms that, for example, can search on the basis
of structure or similarity.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.6
Priority 3 Checkpoints:
- 3.4 Provide functionality for
managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents for multimedia
objects. [Priority 3]
- Note: These alternative equivalents may be packaged
with the tool, written by the author, retrieved from the Web, etc.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.5
- 4.3 Provide the author with a
summary of the document's accessibility status. [Priority 3]
- This checkpoint is intended to encourage authoring tools to notify
authors of accessibility problems in a coherent way. At minimum, provide
a list of the problems by type. More advanced implementations might
integrate the summary with the tool's repair functionality to increase
the flexibility with which problems can be corrected (see checkpoint
4.2).
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.3
- 6.3 In a dedicated
section, document the process of producing accessible content. [Priority 3]
- This checkpoint promotes the production of accessible content by
explicitly informing the author of the steps they need to take (using
the the features of the tool documented for Checkpoint 6.1) to satisfy
this goal. At minimum, provide an overview of the tags and attributes
that are required to enhance accessibility. The documentation for each
feature might explain which disability groups and user agents benefit
from its use.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.3
- 7.1 Ensure that the authoring
interface follows all operating environment conventions that benefit
accessibility. [Priority 3] for standards and conventions that are
beneficial to accessibility
- This checkpoint requires all aspects of the authoring interface to be
accessible to the author. This wide scope means that the checkpoint
applies to the implementation of all the other checkpoints in this
guidelines document. The techniques for this checkpoint include
references to checklists and guidelines for a number of platforms and to
general guidelines for accessible applications. In many cases
several sets of standards will be applicable.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.1
