Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel"

ATAG Checkpoint 4.1: Ensure that the functionalities for checkpoints 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1 are always clearly available to the user [Priority 1]

Techniques:

@No techniques yet.@@

ATAG Checkpoint 4.2: Ensure that accessible authoring practices supporting the minimum level requirements for all WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20] checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author. [Priority 2]

Techniques:

1. Modified Input Field Order: ATAG 2.0 contains ATAG Checkpoint 5.2 does not require that accessibility related controls either obscure or hinder other controls. Instead, the checkpoint emphasizes that these controls should be allotted a screen presence that is appropriate for their importance. For example, some tools have floating properties bars that display input fields appropriate to the currently selected element (see Figure 3.1.2). The relative importance of a property can be communicated to the author in several ways.
   • Reading Order: Without any other forms of organization, most people will read interface items in a "localized" reading order (i.e. in English, French, etc. this is left to right and top to bottom). The higher visibility of items that occur early in the reading order confers higher apparent importance.
   • Grouping: Grouping input fields can change the reading order and the related judgments of importance. For example, the "H" field in the figure below, rises in the reading order due to a strong grouping with the "W" field.
   • Advanced Options: When the properties are explicitly or implicitly grouped into sets of basic and advanced properties, the basic properties will gain apparent importance. For example, in the figure, below, the fact that the "alt" field appears in the default properties, rather than the collapsible portion of the properties bar confers visibility and apparent importance.

   Figure 4.2.1: Example of a floating properties bar (top: maximized, bottom: minimized). [d] (Source: Macromedia Dreamweaver 2.0)

2. Input Field Highlighting: Visibility of input fields related to accessibility may be further enhanced by visual highlighting. For example, the fields may be distinguished from others using icons (see Figure A-3), color (see Figure A-4), underlining, etc. When these methods are used, it is important to ensure that that they are consistent with the overall look and feel of the authoring tool interface (as per ATAG Checkpoint 5.1). For example, if an authoring tool uses an icon in the shape of a black dot to denote the required field, this convention might be extended so that a red dot is used to denote the accessibility-related fields. An additional consideration is that in order to meet ATAG Checkpoint 7.1, the highlighting must be implemented so that it is available through APIs, allowing an author with disabilities to access the highlighting through assistive devices (MSAA, Java Accessibility API, GNOME accessibility).

   Figure 4.2.2: Input field highlighting with colored input field. [d] (Source: mockup by AUWG) Figure 4.2.3: Input field highlighting with an iconic reference to a note. [d] (Source: mockup by AUWG)

3. Grouping Related Input Fields: In some cases, several input fields are required to be completed in order to make a single element accessible. Instead of dispersing these prompts over multiple dialog boxes, it may be more effective to draw them together into one group of controls with a visible tab or other method for accessing the group (see Figure A-5). This can have the additional benefit of allowing accessibility-related help information to be provided without confusion (see "Quick Tips" in the figure, below). The downside of placing all the accessibility related input fields in the same area is that all of them will be neglected if the author does not see the grouping.

   Figure 4.2.4: Accessibility tab on the input element properties dialog. [d] (Source:mockup by AUWG)

Other Techniques:

• If there is more than one option for the author, and one option is more accessible than another, place the more accessible option first and make it the default. For example, when the author has selected text to format, the use of CSS should be emphasized rather than deprecated FONT element. [T0228]
• Highlight the most accessible authoring solutions or templates when presenting choices for the author. [T0229]

ATAG Checkpoint 4.3: 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:

• Provide a consistent look and feel, but not to the point that product differentiation and improved accessibility functionality are compromised:
  • Provide a common toolkit to design tool functionality modules (so that third party developers can add accessibility features with the same look and feel). [T0425]
  • Ensure that author can utilize the tool's accessible authoring features by the same interaction styles used for other features in the program. For example, if the tool makes use of onscreen symbols such as underlines or coloration change rather than dialogs for conveying information, then the same interface techniques should be used to convey accessibility information. [T0223]
  • The same fonts, text sizes, colors, symbols, etc. that characterize other program features should also characterize those dealing with accessibility. [T0224]
• There should be seamless integration of the accessibility functions into the workflow model of the base tool:
  • The accessibility features should be designed as integral components of the authoring tool application, not components that need to be separately executed. [T0222]
  • Include considerations for accessibility, such as short text label and long description attributes, on the same dialog as the source attribute, rather than buried behind an "Advanced..." button. [T0225]
  • The default settings of the authoring tool should include all accessible content production features enabled (as opposed to accessibility features for the author). The author may have the option to disable these features later on. [T0226]
  • Allow efficient and fast access to accessibility-related settings with as few steps as possible needed to make any changes that will generate accessible content. [T0227]

ATAG Checkpoint 4.4: Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including examples. [Priority 2]

Techniques:

• Ensure all examples conform with WCAG10 (at least to the level that the tool conforms to ATAG), regardless of what the example is meant to show (this will help authors familiarize with the requirements of accessibility). [T0236]
• Provide examples of all WCAG10 accessibility requirements (including priority 2 and 3). [T0235]
• When the help files of a base tool do not meet this checkpoint, accessibility plugins could include updated files and modify the base tool's help index to point to the new files. [T0426]
• When encouraging the author to use accessibility features, take a broad view. For example, do not refer to text equivalents as being "for blind authors" or label them with a "disability" icon. Instead, refer to them as being for "authors who are not viewing images". In addition, emphasize the auxiliary benefits of accessibility features. [T0238]
• When explaining the accessibility issues related to non-deprecated elements, emphasize the solutions rather than explicitly discouraging the use of the element. [T0240]
• For tools that include context sensitive help, implement context-sensitive help for accessibility terms as well as tasks related to accessibility. [T0242]
• For tools that include tutorials, provide a tutorial on checking for and correcting Web accessibility problems. [T0246]
• Include pointers to more information on accessible Web authoring, such as WCAG10 and other accessibility-related resources,
• Include current versions of, or links to relevant language specifications in the documentation. This is particularly relevant for languages that are easily hand edited, such as most XML languages [XML]. [T0245]
• Document the tool's conformance to ATAG 1.0 [ATAG10] and include a link to its ATAG conformance evaluation [T0244]

Contents | Guideline 1 | Guideline 2 | Guideline 3 | Guideline 4 | Glossary | References