Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Abstract

This specification provides guidelines for designing Web content authoring tools that are more accessible for people with disabilities. An authoring tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by providing an accessible user interface to authors with disabilities as well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of accessible Web content by all authors.

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

May be Superseded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/.

Editor's Draft of ATAG 2.0

This is an internal Editor's Draft.

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

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.

Introduction

This section is informative, except where noted.

This is a Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version 2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting developers to make their authoring tools more accessible to a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech difficulties, and others. However, even authoring tools that conform to ATAG 2.0 may not be fully accessible to every person with a disability. In order to achieve accessibility authoring tools must address the needs of two (potentially overlapping) user groups:

• authors of Web content, whose needs are met by ensuring the authoring tool user interface itself is accessible (see Part A of the guidelines), and
• end users of Web content, whose needs are met by ensuring that all authors are enabled, supported, and guided towards producing accessible Web content, with the assumption that many authors will not be familiar with the specific needs of end users with disabilities.

The guidelines do not include standard usability recommendations except where they have a significantly greater impact on people with disabilities than on other people.

Although some of the accessibility issues of people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities are addressed by ATAG 2.0, either directly or through assistive technologies, the ATAG 2.0 guidelines do not address many areas of need for people with these disabilities. There is a need for more research and development in this important area.

These guidelines have been written to address the requirements of many different audiences, including, but not limited to:

• authoring tool developers,
• authoring tool users (authors),
• authoring tool purchasers, and
• policy makers.

Definition of authoring tool

ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any software, or collection of software components, that authors can use to create or modify Web content for use by other people.

This definition can cover components such as :

• content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators
• site management tools
• WYSIWYG editors, plain text editors (embedded and stand-alone)
• conversion tools, productivity software that can output Web content technologies (e.g., "Save as HTML")
• blogging tools, wikis, online forums, emailers that produce Web-content
• multimedia authoring tools
• scripting tools, widget development environment
• etc.

Note: Synchronous tools (e.g., chats, collaboration tools, whiteboards, etc.), especially those that archive as Web content, are considered authoring tools and can be made more accessible for both participants and users of the stored archives. While not all parts of ATAG 2.0 will usefully apply, some Techniques for Real-Time Content Production are provided.

Components of Web Accessibility

Authoring tools are just one aspect of accessibility. For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see:

• Essential Components of Web Accessibility - Explains how the WAI guidelines work together with assistive technologies to provide access to the Web by people with disabilities.
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview - Introduces guidelines on making Web content accessible.
• User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) Overview - Introduces guidelines on the design of accessible browsers and other user agents.

Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document

The Guidelines

ATAG 2.0 is divided into two parts, each reflecting a key aspect of accessible authoring tools. Part A includes principles and associated guidelines that are related to ensuring accessibility of the authoring tool user interface to authors with disabilities. Part B contains principles and guidelines related to ensuring support by authoring tools for the creation of accessible Web content by any author (not just those with disabilities) to end users with disabilities.

Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible

The guidelines and success criteria in Part A are organized around the following four principles, adapted from the four principles in WCAG 2.0:

1. Authoring tool must facilitate access by assistive technology - Assistive technologies can only provide augmented display and control to their users if the relevant information is made available by authoring tools using common protocols.
2. Authoring tool must be perceivable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to perceive its user interface components.
3. Authoring tool must be operable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to operate its user interface components.
4. Authoring tool must be understandable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to understand the user interface components that they can perceive and operate.

Part B: Support the production of accessible content

There are three principles in Part B:

1. Production of accessible content must be enabled - The creation of accessible content is dependent on the combined actions of the authoring tool and the author. This guideline specifies the responsibilities that rest exclusively with the tool.
2. Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content - Actions may be taken at the author's initiative that may result in accessibility problems. The authoring tool should include features that provide support and guidance to authors in these situations, so that accessible authoring practices can be followed and accessible web content can be produced.
3. Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated - This guideline includes guidelines that require authoring tools to raise the profile of accessible authoring practices, while at the same time, integrating functions related to accessibility in order to encourage authors to make them common practice.

Note: While the requirements in Part B do not deal with the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface, it should be noted that any of the features (e.g., checker, tutorial) added to meet Part B success criteria must also meet the user interface accessibility requirements of Part A.

Success Criteria

Under each guideline there are success criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform . They are similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when a specific authoring tool is tested against it.

All ATAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be testable. While some can be tested by software, others require human testers for part or all of the test.

Each success criterion for a guideline has a link to the Techniques document that provides:

• "sufficient techniques" for meeting the success criterion, and
• optional "advisory techniques".

Success Criteria Levels

ATAG 2.0 success criteria are organized into three levels of conformance.

• Level A:
  • For success criteria in Part A:
    • These success criteria achieve accessibility by supporting assistive technology while putting the fewest possible limits on tool design. Thus people with a wide range of disabilities using a wide range of assistive technologies, from voice input and eye-tracking devices to screen readers and screen magnifiers, are able to access tools in different ways.
  • For success criteria in Part B:
    • A basic level of support to all authors in creating Web content
    • The content accessibility target is Level "A" Web content accessibility.
• Level AA:
  • For success criteria in Part A:
    • These success criteria provide additional support for assistive technology. At the same time, they also support more direct access to content by the many people who use authoring tools without assistive technology. In general, Level AA success criteria place more limits on tool design than Level A success criteria in Level.
  • For success criteria in Part B:
    • An intermediate level of support to all authors in creating Web content
    • The content accessibility target is raised to Level "AA" Web content accessibility.
• Level AAA:
  • For success criteria in Part A:
    • These success criteria increase both direct access and access through assistive technology. They place even tighter limits on tool design.
  • For success criteria in Part B:
    • An advanced level of support to all authors in creating accessible Web content.
    • The content accessibility target is raised to Level "AAA" Web content accessibility.

Note: If a guideline success criterion is not applicable to an authoring tool, then that success criterion is treated as satisfied for conformance purposes as long as a rationale is provided.

Levels of conformance

Authoring tools may claim full conformance to ATAG 2.0 at one of three conformance levels. The level achieved depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied. The full conformance levels are:

1. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "A"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria.
2. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Double-A"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria.
3. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Triple-A"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria.

In addition, a Partial Conformance claim option is available in cases where an authoring tool has satisfied all of the success criteria at a specified level in one of the two Parts of the document (i.e. "Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible" and "Part B: Support the production of accessible content"). The partial conformance levels are:

1. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A": Authoring Tool User Interface
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
2. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A": Authoring Tool User Interface
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A": Authoring Tool User Interface
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
4. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A": Content Production"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
5. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A": Content Production"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
6. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A": Content Production"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.

Note: The Working Group remains committed to the guiding principle that: "Everyone should have the ability to create and access Web content". Therefore, it is recommended that Partial Conformance be claimed as a step towards full conformance.

Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

The ATAG 2.0 conformance model relies upon Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" documents to precisely specify what an evaluator interprets "Accessible Web Content" to mean for the particular Web content technologies that an authoring tool produces and is implemented using (if applicable).

The recommended reference for the Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" is the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) due to the quality of the documents and the process under which they were developed (See Note on other Accessibility Standards). At the time of publication, version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation [WCAG10], and a second version of the guidelines is under development [WCAG20]. Although a Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" document may use either version of WCAG, developers should give consideration to the following when deciding which WCAG version to use in a product:

• The latest version of WCAG will be the most accurate with respect to state-of-the-art technologies and accessibility best practices. Older versions of WCAG may include requirements that are no longer necessary, due to advances in user agent technology.
• The versions of WCAG differ with respect to the formats for which there are published WCAG technique documents. This is important because the techniques documents may be useful when constructing Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" documents as required by ATAG 2.0.
• The versions of WCAG differ in the degree to which they match the legislation and policies that drive author requirements. Many authors will be seeking to use authoring tools to create Web content that meets legislation, corporate policies, etc. It is likely that as WCAG progresses, so too will legislation and policies, albeit at an uneven pace. Authoring tool developers may, therefore, consider supporting both versions of WCAG in the interim.

ATAG 2.0 Guidelines

This section is normative.

Conformance

This section is normative.

Conformance means that the authoring tool satisfies the success criteria defined in the guidelines section. This conformance section describes conformance, lists the conformance requirements, and explains the important role of accessibility "benchmark" documents.

Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" Document

The purpose of the Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" document is to precisely specify the evaluator's interpretation of what "accessible Web content" means with respect to the particular Web content technology or technologies that are produced by the authoring tool or are used to implement Web-based user interface functionality of the authoring tool (if applicable). This precise interpretation helps the evaluator to judge the completeness and consistency of accessibility-related authoring tool features that must interoperate, such as accessibility prompting, evaluation, and repair features. In addition, because the Benchmark document must be made public, it allows claims to be more fully checked for accuracy.

What does a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document include?

A Benchmark document must be published on a public website (the URI will appear in the conformance claim) under a license that permits it to be copied (so that it can be included in other conformance claims), although not necessarily modified. The Benchmark document must include:

1. The name and version of the Web content technology or technologies covered by the Benchmark document (e.g., "HTML 4.01" or "SVG 1.0 and PNG images") and optionally the URI of the specification(s). The version may be a defined range.
2. The version and URI of the Web content accessibility standard that is being used as a basis for the Benchmark document (e.g., "WCAG 2.0 Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/") (See Note on other Accessibility Standards).
3. The target level of the Benchmark. This is the level that would be met by Web content that implements all of the benchmarks in the Benchmark document. There are three (3) possible levels:
   • Level "A" Web content accessibility: Content conforming to WCAG 2.0 Level "A" or a similar accessibility standard.
   • Level "AA" Web content accessibility: Content conforming to WCAG 2.0 Level "AA" or a similar accessibility standard.
   • Level "AAA" Web content accessibility: Content conforming to WCAG 2.0 Level "AAA" or a similar accessibility standard.
4. Any assumptions about user agents available to authors or end users (related to the "user agent supported" concept in WCAG 2.0)@@.
5. The benchmarks: For each normative requirement of the accessibility standard at the target level, one of the following must be provided:
   • at least one benchmark technique for meeting the normative requirement using the Web content technology or technologies (e.g., HTML 4.01 benchmark techniques for each WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria), or
   • an explanation of why that normative requirement is not applicable to the Web content technology or technologies in question (e.g., for a text-only format, normative requirements related to images would be considered not applicable)

Note on other Accessibility Standards: ATAG 2.0 addresses how authoring tools can be designed to encourage authors to create accessible content. While the Working Group highly recommends the W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines due to the quality of the document and the process under which it was developed, other recommendations, standards, and regulations with the same goal exist in jurisdictions and organizations around the world.

Is a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document normative?

A Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document may be based on informative documents, such as WCAG Techniques, and should not therefore be considered "normative". Instead, the document serves as a "relied upon" reference for a particular conformance claim when it is included in that claim. The reference helps the evaluator to judge the completeness and consistency of accessibility-related authoring tool functions that must interoperate, such as accessibility prompting, evaluation, and repair functions.

Who can create a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark?

A Benchmark can be created by any any person, company or other organization. However, in the interest of being able to directly compare the evaluations of authoring tools that produce the same Web content technologies, the Working Group suggests checking to see if a Benchmark document has already been published, before creating a new one.

What resources are available to help create a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark?

The Working Group suggests the following:

• WCAG Guideline documents:
  • WCAG 1.0 Recommendation [WCAG10]
  • WCAG 2.0 Working Draft [WCAG20]
• WCAG Technique documents:
  • Techniques for WCAG 1.0 [WCAG10-TECHS]
  • Techniques for WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20-TECHS-GENERAL]
• Understanding WCAG documents:
  • Understanding WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20-UNDERSTANDING]
• W3C Access Note series:
  • CSS 2.0 [CSS2-ACCESS]
  • SVG [SVG-ACCESS]
  • SMIL [SMIL-ACCESS]
• Web content technology specifications

Conformance Claims

A conformance claim is an assertion by a claimant that an authoring tool has satisfied the requirements of a chosen ATAG 2.0 conformance profile.

Conditions on Conformance Claims

• At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the Web as a document meeting level "A" of Web content accessibility. A suggested metadata description for this document is "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".
• Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., in marketing materials), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included.
• The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity.
• Claimants may be anyone (e.g., developers, journalists, other third parties).
• Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims and keeping claims up to date.
• Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation that is available.

Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

1. The date of the claim.
2. The ATAG 2.0 version, publishing date and status (e.g., "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, 27 April 2007, Editor's Draft ")
3. The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e.g., vendor name, version number, minor release number, required patches or updates, natural language of the user interface or documentation). The version information may be a range (e.g., "this claim refers to version 6.x").
   • If the authoring tool is a collection of software components (e.g., a markup editor, an image editor, and a validation tool), then information must be provided separately for each component, although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole.
4. The conformance profile, which must include the following:
   • (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that has been satisfied (choose one of: "A", "Double-A", "Triple-A").
   • (b) A list of the "benchmarked" Web content technologies produced by the authoring tool. These are the only technologies covered by the conformance claim.
     • The list must include at least one Web content technology for the conformance claim to be valid.
     • When Web content technologies are typically produced together (e.g., HTML 4.01 and JavaScript), they can be listed separately or together in the list.
     • Each Web content technology must include a Web content accessibility benchmark document.
   • (c) A list of any other Web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are not covered by the claim.
   • (d) The platform(s) upon which all or part (e.g., help system) of the authoring tool was evaluated:
     • For user agent platform(s) used to evaluate Web-Based user interface functionality, provide:
       • The name and version information of the user agent(s).
       • The version and URI of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines document used to evaluate the accessibility of the Web-based functionality.
     • For non-user agent platforms, provide:
       • The name and version information of the platform(s) (e.g., operating system, Java virtual machine, etc.).
       • The name and version of the accessibility platform architecture(s) employed.

Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

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

"Progress Towards Conformance" Statement

Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular ATAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress towards conformance. This statement would be the same as a conformance claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2.0 conformance level that is being progressed towards, rather than one already satisfied, and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. The author of a "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy of their statement. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement.

Disclaimer

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

Appendix A: Glossary

This section is normative.

abbreviation [WCAG 2.0]

A shortened form of a word, phrase, or name. Includes:

1. initialism: shortened forms of a name or phrase made from the initial letters of words or syllables contained in that name or phrase (e.g., ESP is an initialism for extrasensory perception).
2. acronym: abbreviated forms made from the initial letters or parts of other words (in a name or phrase) which may be pronounced as a word (e.g., WAI is an acronym made from the initial letters of the Web Accessibility Initiative).

accessibility platform architecture

A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to enhance communication between mainstream software applications and assistive technologies (e.g., MSAA and IAccessible2 for Windows applications, Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome applications, Java Access for Java applications). On some platforms it may be conventional to enhance communication further via implementing a DOM.

accessibility problem

ATAG 2.0 refers to two types of accessibility problems:

1. authoring tool user interface accessibility problem: An aspect of an authoring tool user interface that does not to meet one of the guideline success criteria in Part A of this document. The severity of a given problem is reflected in the level of the failed success criteria.
2. Web content accessibility problem: An aspect of Web content that does not meet some accessibility requirement. The severity of a given problem is relative and is determined by the accessibility standard referenced by the Web content accessibility benchmark.

accessibility information

Any information that is necessary for undertaking an accessible authoring practice (e.g., equivalent alternatives, role and state information, relationships within complex tables).

accessible content support features

Any features of an authoring tool that directly support authors in increasing the accessibility of the content being authored. Specifically, this will include any functionality that is used to meet the success criteria for B.2.1, B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.4, and B.2.5.

assistive technology [WCAG 2.0, UAAG 1.0]

Software and/or hardware that provides services to meet the requirements of users with disabilities that go beyond direct accessibility features offered by mainstream software applications and hardware. Such services include alternative presentations (e.g., as synthesized speech or magnified content), alternative input methods (e.g., voice), additional navigation or orientation mechanisms, and content transformations (e.g., to make tables more accessible). Examples of assistive technologies that are important in the context of this document include the following:

• 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;
• voice 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;
• alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations.

Mainstream software applications and hardware may also provide services directly that meet the requirements of users with disabilities.

audio description - also called described video, video description and descriptive narration [WCAG 2.0]

An equivalent alternative that takes the form of narration added to the soundtrack to describe important visual details that cannot be understood from the main soundtrack alone. Audio description of video provides information about actions, characters, scene changes, on-screen text, and other visual content. In standard audio description, narration is added during existing pauses in dialogue. In extended audio description, the video is paused so that there is time to add additional description.

authoring action

Any action that authors take using the authoring tool user interface with the intention of editing 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., setting preferences for the tool, searching the help system).

authoring outcome

A characteristic of content that results from one or more authoring actions being applied. Authoring outcomes exist at different levels (e.g., making a paragraph bold vs. deploying a site-wide navigation system) and are cumulative (e.g., text is entered, styled, made into a link, given title). Mainstream rendered (authoring) outcomes are only the subset of content characteristics that are apparent to end-users of mainstream user agents (e.g., text that is bold, a seamless patchwork of images; but not commented code or table relationships). Often, multiple authoring practices exist that will result in the same mainstream rendered authoring outcome, but the outcomes may differ with respect to accessibility (e.g., styled text may appear identical to an image of text on the screen, but will appear differently in audio output).

authoring practice

A technique that guides authors or the authoring tool in selecting authoring actions to apply to content in order to achieve particular authoring outcomes. (e.g., controlling presentation with style sheets, commenting code, testing on multiple browsers). An accessible authoring practice is one that seeks to avoid or correct one or more Web content accessibility problems. Accessible authoring practices sometimes require accessibility information.

authoring session

A state of the authoring tool during which content can be edited by the author. The end of an authoring session is the point in time at which a session ends and the author has no further opportunity to make changes without starting another session. This may be under the control of the author (e.g., closing a document, publishing) or it may be controlled by the authoring tool (e.g., when the authoring tool transfers editing permission to another author on a collaborative system).

authoring tool user interface (non-Web-based)

Any components of an authoring tool user interface that is not implemented as Web content and instead runs directly on a non-user agent platform such as Windows, MacOS, Java Virtual Machine, etc.

authoring tool user interface (Web-based)

Any components of an authoring tool user interface, including editing views, documentation, etc., that is implemented using Web content technologies and is rendered by a user agent. Since Web-based tools may be implemented in the same Web content technologies that they are used to edit, the distinction between the tool's content display and its user interface "chrome" may be less clear than with non-Web-based tools.

authoring tool user interface

The display and control mechanism that authors use to communicate with and operate the authoring tool software. Authoring tool user interfaces may be non-Web-based or Web-based or a combination (e.g., a stand-alone markup editor with on-line help pages). Authoring tool user interfaces can be considered in two parts:

1. "chrome": Any parts of the user interface that do not represent the content being edited. This includes:
   • user interface elements that surround, underlie, or super-impose upon editing views (e.g., text areas, menus bars, rulers, pop-up context menus)
   • user interface elements that are separate from the editing view (e.g. documentation)
2. content display: Any parts of a view that represent the content being edited. This includes:
   • plain text content (but not the containing text box control).
   • content renderings

An accessible authoring tool user interface is one that meets the success criteria in Part A (i.e., does not include any authoring tool user interface accessibility problems). The level of accessibility is determined by the levels of the satisfied success criteria.

authoring tool

See "Definition of authoring tool".

authors

The users of authoring tools. This may include content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. working either alone or collaboratively.

ASCII art [WCAG 2.0]

picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).

benchmarked Web content technologies

See "Web Content Accessibility 'Benchmark' Document".

blink [WCAG 2.0]

Switch back and forth between two visual states in a way that that does not qualify as flash (e.g. it is too slow and/or the change in relative luminance is too small to qualify as flashing). The slower blink is in contrast with flashing, which refers to rapid changes in brightness which can cause seizures. See general flash and red flash thresholds.

captions [WCAG 2.0]

An equivalent alternative that takes the form of text presented and synchronized with synchronized media to provide not only the speech, but also non-speech information conveyed through sound, including meaningful sound effects and identification of speakers. In some countries, the term "subtitle" is used to refer to dialogue only and "captions" is used as the term for dialogue plus sounds and speaker identification. In other countries, "subtitle" (or its translation) is used to refer to both.

change of context [WCAG 2.0]

Change of view or focus. Content that changes the function or meaning of an interface. A change of content is not always a change of context. Small changes in content, such as an expanding outline or dynamic menu, do not change the context.

checking (accessibility) - also called accessibility evaluation [EARL 1.0]

The process by which Web content is evaluated for Web content accessibility problems. ATAG 2.0 identifies three types of checking, based on increasing levels of automation of the tests:

1. manual checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure;
2. semi-automated checking: where 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; and
3. automated checking: where the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by the 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 programs.

content generation

ATAG 2.0 refers to two broad categories of content generation:

1. author-generated content: When authors specify content (e.g., typing markup into a text editor, choosing an element by name from a list, entering information into a dialog box).
2. automatically-generated content: When the authoring tool specifies content (e.g., applying a template, automatically correcting markup errors, dynamically generated content).

content (Web) - or shortened to content [WCAG 2.0]

Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions. In ATAG 2.0, "content" is primarily used in the context of the ouput that is produced by the authoring tool. This includes Web applications, including those that, in turn, act as Web-based authoring tools. Accessible Web content is Web content that does not contain accessibility problems. Usually this refers to a particular level of accessibility (e.g., Web content that meets Level "A" Web content accessibility). Accessible Web content is shorthand for content that meets a given set of accessibility criteria. This does not not necessarily mean that it will be accessible to every person with a disability.

conversion

A process that takes as input, content in one Web content technology (or non-Web content technology, such as a word processing format) and produces as output, content in a different Web content technology (e.g., "Save as HTML" functions).

direct accessibility

Features of mainstream software applications and hardware that augment accessibility by people with disabilities (e.g., keyboard navigation, zoom functions, text-to-speech).

display settings

ATAG 2.0 refers to two types of display settings:

1. display settings (audio): the characteristics of audio output of music, sounds and speech and include volume, speech voices, voice speed, and voice emphasis.
2. display settings (visual): the characteristics of the on-screen rendering of text and graphics and include fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.

documentation

Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be found electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, sample workflows, and tutorials, etc.

element

A pair of tags and their content, or an "empty" tag - one that requires no closing tag or content (used in the same sense as in HTML [HTML4] and XML)

end user

A person who interacts with Web content once it has been authored.

equivalent alternative

Content that is an acceptable substitute for other content that a person may not be able to access. An equivalent alternative fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content upon presentation:

1. text alternative: text that is available via the platform that is used in place of non-text content. [WCAG 2.0]
2. full text alternative for synchronized media including any interaction: document including correctly sequenced text descriptions of all visual settings, actions, speakers, and non-speech sounds, and transcript of all dialogue combined with a means of achieving any outcomes that are achieved using interaction (if any) during the synchronized media. [WCAG 2.0]
3. synchronized alternatives: present essential audio information visually (i.e., captions) and essential video information in an auditory manner (i.e., audio descriptions).

flash [WCAG 2.0]

A pair of opposing changes in relative luminance of 10% or more where the relative luminance of the darker image is below 0.80. Flash is characterized by rapid changes of relative luminance occurring more than three times per second, while blink is less than three times per second. See general flash threshold and red flash threshold for more precise information about the applicability and constraints of flash.

general flash and red flash thresholds [WCAG 2.0]

A sequence of flashes or rapidly changing image sequences where all three of the following occur:

1. there are more than three flashes within any one-second period,
2. the flashing is below 50 Hz, and
3. the combined area of flashes occurring concurrently and contiguously occupies more than a total of .006 steradians (25% of any 10 degree visual field on the screen).

Notes: For the general flash threshold, a flash is defined as a pair of opposing changes in relative luminance of 10% or more and the relative luminance of the darker image is below 0.80. An "opposing change" is an increase followed by a decrease, or a decrease followed by an increase. For the red flash threshold, a flash is defined as any transition to or from a saturated red. For general Web content, using a 341 x 256 pixel rectangle anywhere on the displayed screen area when the content is viewed at 1024 x 768 pixels will provide a good estimate of a 10 degree visual field for standard screen sizes and viewing distances.

human language

Language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means ) to communicate with humans.

inform

To provide authors with information via the authoring tool user interface. Informing mechanisms range from unobtrusive (i.e., information presented without stopping the authors' current activity) to intrusive (i.e., interrupting the author's current activity). Information may be provided as part of a prompt.

informative [WCAG 2.0]

For information purposes and not required for conformance.

label [WCAG 2.0]

Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to authors to identify a component. A label is presented to all authors 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.

mainstream applications and hardware - also called mainstream technology

Software applications and hardware for which augmenting accessibility is secondary to some other purpose (as opposed to assistive technology where it is the primary purpose). Mainstream technologies may include direct accessibility features.

markup

A set of tags from a markup language. Markup can be presentational (i.e., markup that encodes information about the visual layout of the content), structural (i.e., markup that encodes information about the structural role of elements of the content) or semantic (i.e., markup that encodes information about the intended meaning of the content). A markup language is a syntax and/or set of rules to manage markup (e.g., HTML [HTML4], SVG [SVG], or MathML [MATHML]).

name [WCAG 2.0]

Text by which software can identify a component to the 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 [WCAG 2.0]

Any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be made available via the platform or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters), emoticons, leetspeak (which is character substitution), and images representing text.

normative [WCAG 2.0, UAAG 2.0]

Required for conformance. One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document. Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance.

platform

The software environment within which the authoring tool operates. For non-Web-based authoring user interface functionality this will be an operating system (e.g., Windows, MacOS, Linux), virtual machine (e.g., JVM) or a higher level GUI toolkit (e.g., Eclipse). For Web-based authoring user interface functionality, "platform" applies more generically to user agents in general, although for purposes of evaluating conformance to ATAG 2.0 a specific user agent(s) will be listed in the conformance profile. Available via the platform: For non-Web-based authoring user interface functionality this means via an implemented accessibility platform architecture. For Web-based authoring user interface functionality this means following relevant Web content accessibility design guidelines so that the user agent can pass on the information.

plug-in [UAAG 2.0]

A program that runs as part of the authoring tool (e.g., a third-party evaluation and repair tool) and that is not part of content being edited. Authors generally choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.

presentation [WCAG 2.0]

Rendering of the content in a form that can be perceived by authors.

prominence

A heuristic measure of the degree to which authors are likely to notice components in the authoring tool user interface when operating the authoring tool. In this document, prominence refers to visual as well as keyboard-driven navigation. Some of the factors that contribute to the prominence of a component include:

1. component size (large items or items surrounded by extra white space may appear to be conferred higher importance),
2. components order (items that occur early in the "localized" reading order (e.g., left to right and top to bottom; right to left and top to bottom) are conferred higher importance),
3. components grouping (grouping items together can change the reading order and the related judgments of importance),
4. advanced options (when the properties are explicitly or implicitly grouped into sets of basic and advanced properties, the basic properties may gain apparent importance), and
5. highlighting (items may be distinguished from others using icons, color, styling).

prompt [UAAG 2.0]

Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors. Well designed prompting will urge, suggest, and encourage authors.

publishing

Making Web content available to end users (e.g., uploading a Web page, committing a change in a wiki).

relative luminance [WCAG 2.0]

The relative perceived brightness of any point, normalized to 0 for black and 1 for maximum white.

Note 1: The relative luminance of an sRGB color is defined as L = 0.2126 * R + 0.7152 * G + 0.0722 * B where R, G and B are defined as:

• if R_sRGB <= 0.03928 then R = R_sRGB/12.92 else R = ((R_sRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4
• G_sRGB <= 0.03928 then G = G_sRGB/12.92 else G = ((G_sRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4
• if B_sRGB <= 0.03928 then B = B_sRGB/12.92 else B = ((B_sRGB+0.055)/1.055) ^ 2.4

and R_sRGB, G_sRGB, and B_sRGB are defined as:

• R_sRGB = R_8bit/255
• G_sRGB = G_8bit/255
• B_sRGB = B_8bit/255

The "^" character is the exponentiation operator. (Formula taken from [sRGB] and [IEC-4WD]).

Note 2: Almost all systems used today to view Web content assume sRGB encoding. Unless it is known that another color space will be used to process and display the content, authors should evaluate using sRGB colorspace.

Note 3: For dithered colors, use average values of the colors used (average R, average G, and average B).

Note 4: Tools are available that automatically do the calculations when testing contrast and flash.

repairing (accessibility) [EARL 1.0]

The process by which Web content accessibility problems that have been identified within content are resolved. ATAG 2.0 identifies three types of repairing, based on increasing levels of automation:

1. manual: where the repairs are carried out by authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure;
2. semi-automated: 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
3. automated: where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by the 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. Actions that are not reversible may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with.

structured element set

Content that consists of organized elements (e.g., lists, maps, hierarchies, graphs).

synchronized media [WCAG 2.0]

Audio or video synchronized with another format for presenting information and/or with time-based interactive components.

technology (Web content) - or shortened to technology [WCAG 2.0, UAAG 2.0]

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, and JavaScript. A benchmarked Web content technology is one that is listed in the ATAG 2.0 conformance profile and accompanied by a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark document. The level of accessibility listed in the benchmark document should also be referenced (e.g., level "AA" benchmarked technology).

template

A content pattern that is 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.

template selection mechanism

A function that allows authors to select templates to use as the basis for new content or to apply to existing content.

transformation

A process that takes content in one Web content technology as input and outputs different content in the same technology (e.g., a function that transforms tables into lists).

tutorial

A type of documentation that involves the sequential presentation of instructions for performing multi-part tasks.

user agent [WCAG 2.0, UAAG 2.0]

Any software that retrieves and presents Web content for end users. Examples include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs including assistive technologies, that help in retrieving, rendering and interacting with Web content.

user interface component [WCAG 2.0]

A part of the user interface "chrome" or content display (including renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a distinct function. In ATAG 2.0, the term is used to denote any part of the user interface of the authoring tool involved with display or control.@@

video [WCAG 2.0]

The technology of moving pictures or images. Video can be made up of animated or photographic images, or both.

view

User interface functionality that authors use to interact with the content being edited. Authoring tools often have two types of views:

1. editing view: Views that both present the content being edited to authors and allow authors to make modifications to the content. There are several broad approaches to presenting content for editing, which may be combined:
   • (a) instruction level: Authors work with non-rendered instructions for the content being edited (e.g., HTML markup). Examples include plain text editing views as well as form-based editing views that provide direct access to the instructions (e.g., selecting attribute values).
   • (b) content renderings: Authors work with content that is fully or partially rendered, played, or executed. Partial renderings occur when only some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or executed. For example, a frame-by-frame video editor may render the graphical aspects, but not the temporal aspect of a video. Some renderings are WYSIWYG because they closely resemble the appearance and behavior that a user agent would produce (e.g., an HTML editor that displays rich text, images, tables, etc.), while others are non-WYSIWYG because they differ from those produced by user agents (e.g., a graphical wavefront editing view of an audio file).
   • (c) meta-content: Authors work with higher-level or abstract information that the authoring tool interprets to generate the resulting content. For example, a content management system that allows authors very limited control (e.g., toggling on/off, setting colors) over it's built-in content modules (e.g. stock ticker, calendar).
2. preview: A non-editable view in which the content being edited is rendered, played, or executed as it would in a user agent.

workflow

A customary sequence of steps or tasks authors follow to produce a deliverable.

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/TR/2007/WD-ATAG20-20071130/.
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).

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 C: 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.

Note: In this document, bracketed labels such as "[HTML4]" link to the corresponding entries in this section. These labels are also identified as references through markup.

[ATAG10]

"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/.

[ATAG20-TECHS]

"Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility 2.0", J. Treviranus, J. Richards, C. McCathieNevile, and M. May, eds., 22 November 2004. The latest draft of this W3C note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20-TECHS.

[COMPONENTS]

"Essential Components of Web Accessibility", S. L. Henry, ed. This document is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.

[CSS2-ACCESS]

"Accessibility Features of CSS," I. Jacobs and J. Brewer, eds., 4 August 1999. This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/1999/08/NOTE-CSS-access-19990804. The latest version of Accessibility Features of CSS is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access.

[HTML4]

"HTML 4.01 Recommendation", D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, eds., 24 December 1999. This HTML 4.01 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224. The latest version of HTML 4 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4.

[IEC-4WD]

IEC/4WD 61966-2-1: Colour Measurement and Management in Multimedia Systems and Equipment - Part 2.1: Default Colour Space - sRGB. May 5, 1998.

[MATHML]

"Mathematical Markup Language", P. Ion and R. Miner, eds., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July 1999. This MathML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/1999/07/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.

[OFCOM]

Guidance Notes, Section 2: Harm and offence Annex 1, "Ofcom Guidance Note on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television (Re-issued as Ofcom Notes 25 July 2005)" available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/guidance/bguidance/guidance2.pdf)

[PWD-USE-WEB]

"How People With Disabilities Use the Web", J. Brewer, ed., 4 January 2001. This document is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/.

[SMIL-ACCESS]

"Accessibility Features of SMIL," M.-R. Koivunen and I. Jacobs, eds., 21 September 1999. This W3C Note is available at available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL-access.

[sRGB]

"A Standard Default Color Space for the Internet - sRGB," M. Stokes, M. Anderson, S. Chandrasekar, R. Motta, eds., Version 1.10, November 5, 1996. A copy of this paper is available at http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB.html.

[SVG]

"Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification (Working Draft)", J. Ferraiolo, ed. The latest version of the SVG specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG.

[SVG-ACCESS]

"Accessibility of Scalable Vector Graphics," C. McCathieNevile, M.-R. Koivunen, eds., 7 August 2000. This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-access.

[WCAG10]

"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds., 5 May 1999. This WCAG 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/.

[WCAG10-TECHS]

"Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds., 6 November 2000. This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/.

[WCAG20]

"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (Working Draft)", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and J. White, editors. The latest version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Note: This document is still a working draft.

[WCAG20-TECHS-GENERAL]

"General Techniques for (WCAG 2.0)," J. Slatin, T. Croucher, eds. Note: This document is still a working draft.

[WCAG20-TECHS-CSS]

"CSS Techniques for (WCAG 2.0)," W. Chisholm, B. Gibson, eds. Note: This document is still a working draft.

[WCAG20-TECHS-HTML]

"HTML Techniques for (WCAG 2.0)," M. Cooper, ed. Note: This document is still a working draft.

[UAAG]

"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, E. Hansen, editors, 17 December 2002. This is a W3C Recommendation.

[WCAG20-TECHS-SCRIPTING]

"Client-side Scripting Techniques for (WCAG 2.0)," M. May, B. Gibson, eds. Note: This document is still a working draft.

[WCAG20-UNDERSTANDING]

"Understanding (WCAG 2.0)," B. Caldwell, W. Chisholm, J. Slatin, G. Vanderheiden, eds. Note: This document is still a working draft.

[XAG]

"XML Accessibility Guidelines", D. Dardailler, S. B. Palmer, C. McCathieNevile, eds. 3 October 2002. This is a Working Group Draft.

Appendix D: Acknowledgments

Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:

• Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology)
• Greg Pisocky (Adobe)
• Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
• Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Michael S (IBM)
• Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)

Other previously active AUWG participants and other contributors to ATAG 2.0:

Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler, Geoff Deering, Barry A. Feigenbaum, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Karen Mardahl, Charles McCathieNevile, Matt May, Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Heather Swayne, Gregg Vanderheiden, Carlos Velasco, and Jason White.

This document would not have been possible without the work of those who contributed to ATAG 1.0.

This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED05CO0039. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.