Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.1

• B.1.1.1 Tool Choice of Technologies (Level A): Any Web content technologies that is automatically selected by the authoring tool can conform to WCAG Level A.
  • Technique B.1.1.1-1 [Sufficient]: A Web content technology could be considered able to conform to WCAG Level A if multiple content developers have publicly claimed WCAG Level A conformance for content developed using the technology.
    • Example: A content management tool is implemented using HTML templates, JavaScript and CSS for both the user interface and author generated content. One factor in the developer choosing this combination of technologies is that Web resources already exist that are implemented using these technologies and that have publicly claimed WCAG Level A conformance.
  • Technique B.1.1.1-2 [Sufficient]: A Web content technology could be considered able to conform to WCAG Level A if a WCAG Techniques document exists for the technology, regardless of whether the author of the Techniques document is the W3C-WAI WCAG Working Group or a third party (e.g., the developer of a non-W3C document format).
  • Technique B.1.1.1-3 [Sufficient]: Supporting W3C Recommendations, which have been publicly reviewed for accessibility. References include:
    • Technical Reports and Publications page of the W3C.
    • W3C language specific accessibility notes: CSS [CSS2-ACCESS], SMIL [SMIL-ACCESS], HTML4 [HTML4-ACCESS], SVG [SVG-ACCESS], XML languages [XAG].
• B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies (Level A): If the authoring tool provides authors with Web content technology options, technology options that can conform to WCAG Level A are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options and the tool guides the author towards the most accessible technology for the task.
  • Technique B.1.1.2-1 [Sufficient]: When prompting authors to choose between technologies, begin the list with technology options that can conform to WCAG Level A (see Techniques B.1.1.1-1, B.1.1.1-2, B.1.1.1-3 for methods to determine the accessibility of the options).
    • Example: An authoring tool only claims ATAG 2.0 conformance for HTML documents, but allows production of CSS style sheets, and MathML. When the author requests a new document, HTML is the first technology listed.
  • Technique B.1.1.2-2 [Advisory]: Displaying a warning when the author chooses to create Web content with a technology that cannot conform to WCAG Level A or with a technology that theoretically could conform to WCAG Level A, but for which the authoring tool does not provide accessibility support.
    • Example: A sample warning might read "Accessibility support is not available for documents in this format".

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.1

• B.1.1.3 Tool Choice of Technologies (Level AA): Any Web content technologies that is automatically selected by the authoring tool can conform to WCAG Level AA.
  • See Techniques for B.1.1.1 using level WCAG Level AA.
• B.1.1.4 Author Choice of Technologies (Level AA): If the authoring tool provides authors with Web content technology options, technology options that can conform to WCAG Level AA are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options and the tool guides the author towards the most accessible technology for the task.
  • See Techniques for B.1.1.2 using level WCAG Level AA.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.1

• B.1.1.5 Tool Choice of Technologies (Level AAA): Any Web content technologies that is automatically selected by the authoring tool can conform to WCAG Level AAA.
  • See Techniques for B.1.1.1 using level WCAG Level AAA.
• B.1.1.6 Author Choice of Technologies (Level AAA): If the authoring tool provides authors with Web content technology options, technology options that can conform to WCAG Level AAA are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options and the tool guides the author towards the most accessible technology for the task.
  • See Techniques for B.1.1.2 using level WCAG Level AAA.

Applicability Notes:

• If an authoring tool performs transformations or conversions after an authoring session ends (e.g., a batch maintenance process) only option (a) is allowed for both B.1.2.1 and B.1.2.3.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.2

• B.1.2.1 Accessibility Information Preservation (Minimum): If the authoring tool performs transformations or conversions on existing Web content, then for any accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A at least one of the following is true:
  • (a) Preserve in Output: the accessibility information is preserved and available for end users in the resulting content;
  • (b) Preserve Input and Notify: a copy of the accessibility information is retained (e.g., as a "comment", by saving a backup copy) and the authors are notified of the location and of the fact that it will not be available to end users; or
  • (c) Author Queried: the authors are queried for an action for each piece of accessibility information that will not be preserved and is notified that this may result in accessibility problems.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-1 [Sufficient for (a)]: Preserve accessibility information in similar data structures.
    • Example: If converting between HTML and SVG the contents of alt attributes can be stored in desc attributes.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-2 [Sufficient for (a)]: Where necessary, preserve accessibility information in a dissimilar, but accessible way.
    • Example: If transforming a SMIL presentation with a closed-caption text track into a video-only format, provide the option of an open-captioned video.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-3 [Sufficient for (b)]: Automatically archiving a backup copy of the original content if accessibility information will be lost and notifying the author of both the location and the fact that the new location will not be available to end users needing the information.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-4 [Advisory]: When importing images with associated descriptions into a markup document, make the descriptions available through appropriate markup.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-5 [Advisory]: Avoid transforming text into images. Use style sheets for presentation control, or use an XML application that keeps the text as text. If this is not possible, ensure that the text is available as equivalent text for the image.
  • Technique B.1.2-1.6 [Advisory]: Notifying the author before changing the technology (including the DTD) of the content being authored.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-7 [Advisory]: Allow authors to edit transformation or conversion templates to specify the way presentation conventions should be converted into structural markup.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-8 [Advisory]: Ensure that changes to graphical layouts do not reduce readability when the document is rendered serially. For example, confirm the linearized reading order with the author.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-9 [Advisory]: When transforming a table to a list or list of lists, ensure that table headings are transformed into headings and that summary or caption information is retained as rendered content.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-10 [Advisory]: When converting linked elements (i.e., footnotes, endnotes, call-outs, annotations, references, etc.) provide them as inline content or maintain two-way linking.
  • Technique B.1.2.1-11 [Advisory]: When converting from an unstructured word-processor format to markup, ensure that headings and list items are transformed into appropriate structural markup (appropriate level of heading or type of list, etc.).
  • Technique B.1.2.1-12 [Advisory]: When developing automatic text translation functions, strive to make the resulting text as clear and simple as possible.

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.2

• B.1.2.2 Accessibility Information Preservation (Enhanced): If the authoring tool performs transformations or conversions during an authoring session, then any accessibility information in the pre-transformation/conversion content that is required for content to conform to WCAG Level AA or AAA is preserved and available for end users in the resulting content;
• B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason, then at least one of the following is true:
  • (a) Preserve Accessibility Information: the authoring tool only automatically deletes content that it can detect is not accessibility information;
  • (b) Notification Option: authors have the option to receive notification before deletion; or
  • (c) No Deletion Option: authors have the option to turn off the automatic deletion.
  • Technique B.1.2.2-1 [Sufficient]: Detecting and avoiding the deletion of any author-generated content.
  • Technique B.1.2.2-2 [Sufficient for (a)]: Detecting and avoiding the deletion of author-generated content that is accessibility information.
  • Technique B.1.2.2-3 [Sufficient for (b)]: Providing the author the option to confirm or override removal of content either on a change-by-change basis or as a batch process.
  • Technique B.1.2.2-4 [Sufficient for (c)]: When an automatic process is to be performed that cannot be completed without removing content (even including unrecognized markup), providing the author with the option of canceling the operation.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.2

• (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline B.1.2)

Applicability Notes:

• This guideline applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer under the assumption that authors will respond properly to any prompts.
• The guideline does not apply when actions of the authors prevent generation of accessible content (e.g., by setting less strict preferences, ignoring prompts for accessibility information, providing faulty information, writing their own automated scripts, etc.).

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.3

• B.1.3.1 Automatic "A" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level A at the conclusion of the automatic generation process (e.g., when inserted into the existing content).
  • Technique B.1.3.1-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that any action that the authoring tool takes without complete author knowledge that causes content to be added or modified has the result of not introducing new WCAG Level A contraventions.
  • Technique B.1.3.1-2 [Advisory]: Using prompting to elicit information from the author when necessary (see Guideline B.2.1).

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.3

• B.1.3.2 Automatic "AA" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level AA at the conclusion of the automatic generation process.
  • See Techniques for B.1.3.1 using WCAG Level AA.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.1.3

• B.1.3.3 Automatic "AAA" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level AAA at the conclusion of the automatic generation process.
  • See Techniques for B.1.3.1 using WCAG Level AAA.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.1

• B.2.1.1 Guide "A" Accessible: If authors are prompted for any information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image modification dialog), then the tool also prominently prompts for any accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level A.
  • Technique B.2.1.1-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that accessibility cues are added to relevant pre-existing cues (e.g., image property dialogs, table property dialogs, publication checklists, etc.).
• B.2.1.2 Warn "A" Accessible: If an authoring action or instruction will always lead to the creation of content that cannot be made to meet WCAG Level A other than by making an alternative version, then a warning is displayed.
  • Technique B.2.1.2-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that all instruction text would, if followed exactly by the author, leads to content being created or modified so as to meet WCAG Level A.
  • Technique B.2.1.2-2 [Sufficient]: Consistently labeling help documents or other documentation such that, if followed exactly by the author, it would lead to content being created or modified to not meet WCAG Level A.

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.1

• B.2.1.3 Guide "AA" Accessible: If authors are prompted for any information as content is being added or updated, then the tool also prominently prompts for accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level AA.
  • See Techniques for B.2.1.1 using WCAG Level AA.
• B.2.1.4 Warn "AA" Accessible: If an authoring action or instruction will always lead to the creation of content that cannot be made to meet WCAG Level AA other than by making an alternative version, then a warning is displayed.
  • See Techniques for B.2.1.2 using WCAG Level AA.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.1

• B.2.1.5 Guide "AAA" Accessible: If authors are prompted for any information as content is being added or updated, then the tool also prominently prompts for accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level AAA.
  • See Techniques for B.2.1.1 using WCAG Level AAA.
• B.2.1.6 Warn "AAA" Accessible: If an authoring action or instruction will always lead to the creation of content that cannot be made to meet WCAG Level AAA other than by making an alternative version, then a warning is displayed.
  • See Techniques for B.2.1.2 using WCAG Level AAA.

Applicability Notes:

• While automated checking or more advanced implementations of semi-automated checking may improve the authoring experience, manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet the success criteria for this guideline.
• This guideline does not apply if the authoring tool controls the authoring process to such an extent that it is not possible for authors to introduce accessibility problems.
• This guideline does not apply to content that is not available at publishing (e.g., the actual content of third-party "feeds").

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.2

• B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility (Level A): At least one individual check is associated with each WCAG Level A Success Criterion that the tool has the functionality to modify (e.g., a tool that inserts images should check for alt text; a tool that can edit captions should check for them).
  • Technique B.2.2.1-1 [Sufficient]: Providing accessibility checking for the various success criteria in WCAG, identified as Level A. In some cases several checks may be required to appropriately test whether a WCAG success criterion has been met.
  • Technique B.2.2.1-2 [Advisory]: Providing a listing of the checks performed in the conformance claim.
• B.2.2.2 Availability: Checking is available prior to publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool.
  • Technique B.2.2.2-1 [Sufficient]: Providing accessibility checking as an action (e.g., as a menu item, etc.) at all times.
  • Technique B.2.2.2-2 [Sufficient]: Prompting the author to perform an accessibility check if the author chooses to close or publish the content
• B.2.2.2 Identify Range: The appropriate range (e.g., element, group of elements, entire file, site, Web application, etc.) for each potential accessibility problem is identified.
  • Technique B.2.2.3-1 [Sufficient]: Identifying the entire span of elements covered by a potential accessibility problem.
    • Example: A instruction-level authoring tool displays errors in a separate pane by the line number of the first element in the span.
    • Example: A instruction-level authoring tool displays errors in-line by underlining all of the markup for the affected span of elements.
    • Example: A WYSIWYG authoring tool displays errors in-line with the rendered content in the WYSIWYG editing view as blue outlining around or under the affected span of elements.
  • Technique B.2.2.3-2 [Advisory]: Displaying manual checks in a way that balances the need for the author to make specific changes to some kinds of content (e.g., non-text objects, acronyms, table cells, etc.) while not overwhelming the author with numerous manual checks for other kinds of content that can be checked more generally (e.g., background color contrast, reading level, etc.). Excessively general checks (e.g., "does the page meet all of the requirements?") should be avoided.
• B.2.2.4 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), instructions are provided to help authors to decide.
  • Technique B.2.2.4-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that the wording of prompts answers the following questions: "What part of the content should be examined?" and "What is present or absent in the event that the problem exists?".
  • Technique B.2.2.1-3 [Advisory]: Saving author judgments for manual checks and only prompting for new judgments after substantial changes is a more user-friendly approach.
  • Technique B.2.2.4-2 [Advisory]: Providing preview modes to authors view their content in ways it may be viewed by others, but that they may not have considered:
    • an alternative content view (with images and other multimedia replaced by any alternative content)
    • a monochrome view (to test contrast)
    • a collapsible structure-only view (to test keyboard navigation)
    • a text to speech view (to test the availability of text alternatives)
    • no scripts view
    • no frames view
    • no style sheet view
    • Example: A WYSIWYG authoring interface includes a list of rendering options as sub-menu options of a View menu. The options include "All" (i.e., render as in a generic browser), "text-only" (i.e., non-text items replaced by textual equivalents), "no styles", "no frames", and "grayscale" (used to check for sufficient contrast). In the background, the "earth rise" image in the WYSIWYG view can be seen in grayscale. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.2

• B.2.2.5 Check Accessibility (Level AA): At least one individual check is associated with each WCAG Level AA Success Criterion that the tool has the functionality to modify.
  • See Techniques for B.2.2.1 using WCAG level AA.
• B.2.2.6 View Status: If the authoring tool records accessibility problems found during checking, then a list of any accessibility problems is available to authors prior to the end of the authoring session.
  • Technique B.2.2.6-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the option to view a single consolidated list of all of the accessibility problems that are detected by the checking function (see Guideline B.2.2), organized by problem type and number of instances.
  • Technique B.2.2.6-2 [Advisory]: Providing direct links to additional help and repair assistance from the list of accessibility problems.
• B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking , authors have the option to save the list to facilitate interoperability between checking and repair.
  • Technique B.2.2.7-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the option of storing accessibility status information in a format that can be processed by a variety of tools (e.g., using Evaluation and Repair Language [EARL]).
• B.2.2.8 Metadata for Discovery: If the authoring tool records accessibility status, then authors have the option to associate this status with the content as metadata to facilitate resource discovery by end users.
  • Technique B.2.2.8-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the option of storing accessibility status information using the IMS AccessForAll Meta-data mechanism [ACCESSFORALL].

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.2

• B.2.2.9 Check Accessibility (Level AAA): At least one individual check is associated with each WCAG Level AAA Success Criterion that the tool has the functionality to modify.
  • See Techniques for B.2.2.1 using WCAG level AAA.

Applicability Notes:

• While automated repairing or more advanced implementations of semi-automated repairing may improve the authoring experience, only manual repairing is the minimum requirement to meet the success criteria for this guideline.
• This guideline does not apply if the authoring tool controls the authoring process to an extent that it is not possible for authors to introduce accessibility problems

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.3

• B.2.3.1 Repair Accessibility (Level A): For each WCAG Level A accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (required in Guideline B.2.2), repair assistance is provided.
  • Technique B.2.3.1-1 [Sufficient]: For each potential accessibility problem identified by the checking function (required in Guideline B.2.2), providing repair instructions that an author (with sufficient skill and knowledge to use the rest of the tool) could follow to correct the problem. At the developer's discretion, semi-automated repairs (that prompts the author for required information) or automated repairs (that are able to complete the repair without prompting the author) may be substituted.
  • Technique B.2.3.1-2 [Advisory]: Providing as much automated repair as possible. Where necessary provide semi-automated repairing (see Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation). Where neither of these options is possible, provide manual repairing.
  • Technique B.2.3.1-3 [Advisory]: When appropriate, reusing affected elements' property editing mechanisms. This has the advantage that the author is already somewhat familiar with the interface. However, this practice does not necessarily focus the author's attention on the dialog control(s) that are relevant to the required correction.
  • Technique B.2.3.1-4 [Advisory]: Implementing a special-purpose correcting interface, analogous to a spelling or grammar checker, that includes only the input field(s) for the information currently required. Additional information and tips that the author may require in order to properly provide the requested information can be added.
    • Example: A special-purpose correction interface supports the author's repair task by providing (1) a short description of the problem (here: "Missing Alternate Text Label for an Image"), (2) a preview (here: the "earthrise" image that is missing a label), (3) tips for performing the repair (here: "Alternate text should be 10 words or less and should include any text in the image."; "Image buttons should have alternate text that describes the button function."; and "Image bullets should have "bullet" as alternate text."), and (4) an offered semi-automated repair in an editable drop-down box (here: "An earth rise as seen from the moon"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      
    Technique B.2.3.1-5 [Advisory]: Presenting accessibility problems and repair options in a sequential manner analogous to a typical spelling or grammar checking "wizard". Because of the wider range of problems an accessibility checker needs to handle (i.e., missing text, missing structural information, improper use of color, etc.), the interface template will likely need to be especially flexible.
    • Example: A sequential accessibility checker. The special-purpose correction interface from the previous example is supplemented by a progress indicator ("5 of 25") and navigation buttons to move backwards ("back") and forwards ("skip") through the list of repair tasks. Buttons to "repair", get "help" and "cancel" are also provided. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      
    Technique B.2.3.1-6 [Advisory]: Where an authoring tool is able to detect site-wide errors, allowing the author to make site-wide corrections. This should not be used for equivalent alternatives when the function is not known with certainty (see Guideline B.2.4).
  • Technique B.2.3.1-7 [Advisory]: Providing a mechanism for authors to navigate sequentially among uncorrected accessibility errors. This allows the author to quickly scan accessibility problems in context.
  • Technique B.2.3.1-8 [Advisory]: Consulting the Techniques for Accessibility Evaluation and Repair Tools [AERT] Public Working Draft document for evaluation and repair algorithms.

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.3

• B.2.3.2 Repair Accessibility (AA): For each WCAG Level AA accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking, repair assistance is provided.
  • See Techniques for B.2.3.1 using WCAG Level AA.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.3

• B.2.3.3 Repair Accessibility (AAA): For each WCAG Level AAA accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking, repair assistance is provided.
  • See Techniques for B.2.3.1 using WCAG Level AAA.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.4

• B.2.4.1 Accept, Modify, Reject: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject any authoring tool-supplied equivalent alternative, prior to insertion.
  • Technique B.2.4.1-1 [Sufficient]: Providing a mechanism for the author to accept, modify, or reject any equivalent alternatives that the authoring tool supplies during the insertion process.
  • Technique B.2.4.1-2 [Advisory]: Allowing the author to accept patterns of future uses of an equivalent alternative under certain conditions (e.g., whenever the same object is marked with the same semantic role).
  • Technique B.2.4.1-3 [Advisory]: If the author changes the alternative equivalent for a non-text object, asking the author whether all instances of the object with the same known function should also be updated.
• B.2.4.2 Edit Existing: If the authoring tool is capable of adding equivalent alternatives for a type of non-text objects then authors can edit the equivalent alternatives.
  • Technique B.2.4.2-1 [Sufficient]: Proving editing mechanisms for all applicable equivalent alternative types in a properties editor.
  • Technique B.2.4.2-2 [Advisory]: Providing an editing capability for any equivalent alternatives managed by the tool.
    • Example: A text equivalents registry viewer allows the author to query and edit the various text equivalents stored in the registry. For maximum flexibility, the design takes into account multiple non-text objects of the same name, multiple types of text equivalents for each non-text object, and multiple versions of each text equivalent type. In the viewer shown here, the author has selected "image" as the "media type" and then selected pic123.gif as the "object" to edit. This has brought up a rendering of the "earthrise" image. The viewer also shows that the object has three text labels. The author has selected one ("An earth rise as seen from the moon") in order to edit it. In addition some authoring tips are included ("Alternate text should be 10 words or less and should include any text in the image", "Image buttons should have alternate text that describes the button function.", and "Image bullets should have "bullet" as alternate text."(Source: mockup by AUWG)
      

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.4

• B.2.4.3 Acceptable Sources: Authoring tools only supply equivalent alternatives from the following sources:
  • (a) Author-Entered: equivalent alternatives previously entered by authors for the same non-text object (e.g., by the same author, or another author on a collaborative system),
  • (b) From Object Database: equivalent alternatives stored with the non-text object in an object database (or equivalent),
  • (c) Null when Appropriate: null equivalent alternatives for non-text objects that the authoring tool recognizes are only used for pure decoration, or
  • (d) Audio, Video, or CART Analysis: automatic video or audio analysis (e.g., speech recognition).
  • Technique B.2.4.3-1 [Sufficient]: Placing, within the appropriate field of the non-text object editing dialog box, a text alternative (or multiple alternatives if a drop-down is used) that was obtained from one of the acceptable sources.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.4

• B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors can store, for future reuse, both of the following author-assigned equivalent alternatives (as applicable):
  • (a) Text Alternatives: plain text text alternatives that the authoring tool stores directly (e.g., alternative text labels, long text descriptions), and
  • (b) Other Alternatives: referenced synchronized alternatives or accessible alternatives to synchronized media that the authoring tool stores as URIs (e.g., captions for video, sign language interpretation videos).
  • Technique B.2.4.4-1 [Sufficient]: Maintaining a registry that associates object identity information with the text and URIs of alternative information (e.g., making use of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF10]). Whenever an object is used and an equivalent alternative is collected, via prompting (see Guideline B.2.1) or repair (see Guideline B.2.3) the object's identifying information and the alternative information is added to the registry. The stored alternative information is presented back to the author as default text in the appropriate field, whenever the associated object is inserted.
  • Technique B.2.4.4-2 [Advisory]: Allowing several different versions of alternative information to be associated with a single object.
  • Technique B.2.4.4-3 [Advisory]: Ensuring that the stored alternative information required for pre-authored content (see Guideline B.1.5) is made interoperable with the management system to allow the alternative equivalents to be retrieved whenever the pre-authored content is inserted.
  • Technique B.2.4.4-4 [Advisory]: Using the stored alternatives to support keyword searches of the object database (to simplify the task of finding relevant images, sound files, etc.).
  • Technique B.2.4.4-5 [Advisory]: Allowing the equivalents alternatives registry to be made shareable between authors in collaborative systems.

Note: Equivalent alternatives should not be automatically generated from unreliable sources (e.g., file names should not be used as text alternatives).

Applicability Notes:

• Templates may be complicated to check for accessibility due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of templates is instead measured by the accessibility of content (in the final technology) created through their proper use.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.5

• B.2.5.1 Templates "A" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets WCAG Level A when used.
• B.2.5.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses.
  • Technique B.2.5.2-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring all templates meet at least WCAG Level A when used.
  • Technique B.2.5.2-2 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that a reasonably representative set of templates is accessible.
    • Example: A tool provides several template choices for home pages, guest books and on-line albums. For each type of functionality, the basic option is accessible.
• B.2.5.3 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true:
  • (a) Indicate: the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known),
  • (b) Prominence: any accessible template options have prominence that is comparable with that of other options in the selection mechanism.
  • Technique B.2.5.3-1 [Sufficient]: Listing the available templates and providing accessibility status as a sortable field.
  • Technique B.2.5.3-2 [Advisory]: Storing the accessibility status within the template.
  • Technique B.2.5.3-3 [Advisory]: Storing the accessibility status external to the template within a template management system.
  • Technique B.2.5.3-4 [Advisory]: If suitable, evaluating templates for accessibility at run-time.

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.5

• B.2.5.4 Templates "AA" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets WCAG Level AA when used.
  • See Techniques for B.2.5.1 using WCAG Level AA.
• B.2.5.5 New Templates: If authors can use the authoring tool to create new templates for use by a template selection mechanism, they have the option to record the accessibility status of the new templates.
  • See Techniques or B.2.5.3 for ways in which the status might be stored.
  • Technique B.2.5.4-1 [Sufficient]: Providing a status saving option as part of the accessibility checking feature (see Guideline B.2.2).
  • Technique B.2.5.4-2 [Advisory]: Making accessibility checks mandatory before saving templates.
  • Technique B.2.5.4-3 [Advisory]: Advising the author that templates should be held to a high accessibility standard, since they will be repeatedly reused.
• B.2.5.6 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates, then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status.
  • See Techniques for B.2.5.3 for ways in which the status might be stored.
• B.2.5.7 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true:
  • (a) Indicate: the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known),
  • (b) Prominence: any accessible options have prominence that is comparable with that of other options in the selection mechanism.
  • See Techniques for B.2.5.3, reading "pre-authored content" in place of "templates".
  • Technique B.2.5.7-1 [Advisory]: Ensuring that equivalent alternatives provided for pre-authored content are compatible with features to manage, edit, and reuse equivalent alternatives (see Guideline B.2.4).
    • Example: An authoring tool is shipped with a clip art collection. Each image in the collection has a short text label and long text description and the associations have all been pre-loaded into the equivalent alternative management system so that whenever the author inserts an image its equivalent alternatives are automatically retrieved.
• B.2.5.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status.
  • See Techniques for B.2.5.3 for ways in which the status might be stored.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.2.5

• B.2.5.9 Templates "AAA" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically select templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets WCAG Level AAA when used.
  • See Techniques for B.2.5.1 using WCAG Level AAA.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.1

• B.3.1.1 Accessible Actions Prominent (Minimum): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions to achieve the same mainstream rendered outcome, then actions that implement accessible authoring practices are at least as prominent as the other action(s) (e.g., a "bold" button in a toolbar inserts semantic rather than formatting markup).
  • Technique B.3.1.1-1 [Sufficient]: Removing less accessible options.
  • Technique B.3.1.1-2 [Sufficient]: Providing the more accessible choice with a higher position in the menus and having it appear in interface shortcuts such as toolbars.
    • Example: An authoring tool that supports two methods for setting text color: using CSS and using font. Since using CSS is the more accessible option, it is given a higher prominence within the authoring interface by: (1) the "CSS Styling" option appearing above the "FONT Styling" option in the drop down Text menu, and (2) the CSS styling option being used to implement the one-click text color formatting button in the tool bar. The association is made clear because the toolbar button has the same icon (an "A" beside a color spectrum) as the "Color" sub-menu item under the "CSS Styling" menu option.). An (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.1

• B.3.1.2 Accessible Actions Prominent (Enhanced): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions to achieve the same mainstream rendered outcome, then actions that implement accessible authoring practices are more prominent than the other action(s).

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.1

• (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline B.3.1)

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.2

• (No level A success criteria for Guideline B.3.2)

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.2

• B.3.2.1 Sequencing Features: Function that sequences authoring actions for authors (e.g., wizards) provide any accessibility prompts relevant to the content being edited at or before the first opportunity to successfully complete the function.
• B.3.2.2 Sequenced Instructions: Instructions (e.g., tutorials, reference manuals, design guides) that consist of a sequence of steps for authors to follow include the relevant accessibility authoring practices in the sequence before the first opportunity to successfully complete the sequence.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.2

• (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline B.3.2)

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.3

• B.3.3.1 Active by Default: All accessible content support features are active by default.
  • Technique B.3.3.1-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that all accessible content support features are turned on by default within the authoring tool preferences area.
    • Example: The preference setting area of an authoring tool, open to an "Accessibility" section, shows the default settings. "W3C-WCAG" and a level (e.g. "Double-A") are selected as are the following options: "Check accessibility as you type", "Check accessibility after saving", "Auto-correct when possible", "Highlight accessibility related fields", "Prompt when highlighted fields are left blank", and "Provide accessibility 'Quick Tips'". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      
• B.3.3.2 Reactivate Option: If authors deactivate an accessible content support feature, then they can always reactivate the feature.
  • Technique B.3.3.2-1 [Sufficient]: Providing an authoring tool preferences area where any deactivated features can be reactivated.

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.3

• B.3.3.3 Deactivation Warning: If authors deactivate an accessible content support feature, then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems.
  • Technique B.3.3.3-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the author with a warning whenever an accessible content support feature is turned off (e.g., from the authoring tool preferences area.
    • Example: In an authoring tool, the author has unchecked a "highlighting accessibility related fields" feature the tool. As a result the tool displays a warning that reads "You have just turned off the highlighting accessibility related fields feature. This feature is designed to inform you when information must be provided in order for your documents to comply with your target accessibility setting. Turning this feature off could cause your documents to be less accessible to many users. In some jurisdictions accessibility is a legal requirement. Are you sure you want to proceed?". The author has the option to answer "Yes", "No" or "Cancel". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      
• B.3.3.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent to authors as comparable features related to other types of Web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors).
  • Technique B.3.3.4-1 [Sufficient in combination]: Ensuring that prompting for accessibility information has the same prominence as prompting for information critical to content correctness (e.g., a tool that prompts the author for a required multimedia file name attribute has prompts with the same prominence for short text labels and long descriptions for that object.
    • Example: An "Image Properties" dialog box in which the input fields are ordered (from top to bottom, left to right): source ("src"), short label ("alt"), long description ("longdesc"), height, and width. The buttons at the bottom are "More...", "OK" and "Cancel". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      
  • Technique B.3.3.4-2 [Sufficient in combination]: Ensuring that utilities for checking and repairing accessibility problems has the same prominence as utilities for checking for information critical to content correctness (e.g., a tool that checks for spelling, grammar, or code syntax will have checks with the same prominence as checking for accessibility problems).
    • Example: An authoring interface that checks for and displays spelling and accessibility errors with the same prominence in that both are shown as underlines, one red, one blue. In this case, the author has activated a right-click pop-up menu on the word "CHZ" that includes spelling repair options ("1 Khz", "2 Chi", "Check Spelling...") and accessibility repair options ("Repair: Set acronym expansion…", "Skip", "Ignore", and "Check Accessibility...") and "Help...". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      
  • Technique B.3.3.4-3 [Sufficient in combination]: Ensuring that documentation for accessibility has the same prominence as documentation for information critical to content correctness. (e.g., a tool that documents any aspect of its operation will have documentation with the same prominence for accessibility).
    • Example: Accessibility documentation is part of the main documentation of an authoring tool, with very similar prominence to that of the spelling-related features. In the right pane is the documentation table of contents, where "Accessibility Features" appears as a top level topic just below "Spelling Features". In the left panel is the help text, demonstrating a style typical of the rest of the help system: "Checking for Accessibility: A variety of accessibility checking options are available: Accessibility verifier, Check accessibility as you type, Manual test support materials. These are suitable for use at different times during the authoring process and all have options that can be changed with the accessibility preferences. To get more information on accessible Web content, see the References.". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.3

• (No level AAA success criteria for Guideline B.3.3)

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.4

• B.3.4.1 Instructions: Instructions for using the accessible content support features appear in the documentation.
  • Technique B.3.4.1-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that the help system answers the question "What features of the tool encourage the production of accessible content?" with reference to all of the accessible content support features and for each feature identified, the help system answers the question "How are these features operated?".
  • Technique B.3.4.1-2 [Advisory]: Providing direct links from accessible content support features to context sensitive help on how to operate the features.
  • Technique B.3.4.1-3 [Advisory]: Providing direct links from within the accessibility-related documentation that take the author directly to the relevant accessible content support features.
  • Technique B.3.4.1-4 [Advisory]: During prompting and repairs, providing the author with immediate access to some basic accessibility documentation and one-step access to more comprehensive documentation.
    • Example: An accessibility checker includes some limited tips for authoring short text labels listed beneath the text entry area as well as a "Help" button linking to the full documentation. The tips are: "Alternate text should be 10 words or less and should include any text in the image.", "Image buttons should have alternate text that describes the button function.", and "Image bullets should have 'bullet' as alternate text.". The screen shot also includes the name of the problem ("Missing Alternate Text Label for an Image"), a field for adding the short text label and a preview rendering of the image ("earthrise"). At the bottom are five buttons: "Help", "< Back", "Repair", "Skip", and "Cancel". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.4

• (No level AA success criteria for Guideline B.3.4)

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.4

• B.3.4.2 Accessible Authoring Tutorial: A tutorial on the accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided.
  • Technique B.3.4.2-1 [Sufficient]: Providing a tutorial that describes how to use the authoring tool to increase the accessibility of Web content. The tutorial begins at the typical starting point for the tool (e.g., empty document) and, for example, describes how accessibility prompting should be followed as content is being added or modified. The tutorial also covers when and how checking and repair should be performed.
  • Technique B.3.4.2-2 [Advisory]: Ensuring that wherever rationales appear, the text avoids referring to accessibility features as being exclusively for particular groups (e.g., "for blind authors"). Instead, the rationales emphasize the importance of accessibility for a wide range of content consumers, from those with disabilities to those with alternative viewers (see "Auxiliary Benefits of Accessibility Features", a W3C-WAI resource).
  • Technique B.3.4.2-3 [Advisory]: Providing a dedicated accessibility section.
  • Technique B.3.4.2-4 [Advisory]: Providing context-sensitive help definitions for accessibility-related terms.
  • Technique B.3.4.2-5 [Advisory]: Including pointers to more information on accessible Web authoring, such as WCAG and other accessibility-related resources.
  • Technique B.3.4.2-6 [Advisory]: Including pointers to relevant technology specifications. This is particularly relevant for languages that are easily hand-edited, such as most XML languages.
  • Technique B.3.4.2-7 [Advisory]: Calling author attention to accessibility-related idiosyncrasies of the tool compared to other authoring tools that create the same kind of content.
    • Example: Content might need to be saved before an automatic accessibility checking feature becomes active.

Applicability Notes:

• An exception to these success criteria is allowed for examples that are specifically intended to demonstrate inaccessible practices to be avoided.

Level A Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.5

• (No level A success criteria for Guideline B.3.5)

Level AA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.5

• B.3.5.1 Model "A" Accessible Practice: Any examples of authoring practices in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG Level A accessible authoring practices.
  • Technique B.3.5.1-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that in the authoring tool documentation, all examples of content conform to WCAG Level A and also that all screen shots of the authoring tool interface are in states that corresponds with the production of content that conforms to Level A (e.g., prompts filled in, optional accessibility features turned on, etc.).
    • Example: Documentation for the input element in this instruction-level authoring tool makes use of the label element in an example in order to reinforce the routine nature of the pairing. The help text reads: "Input Element: Input elements are form controls. They let the reader of your page use text entry, checkboxes, radio buttons, etc. to interact with your page. The most important attribute of the INPUT element is type. The value of type can be: button, checkbox, file, hidden, image, password, radio, reset, submit, and text. Examples:<label>Enter your name: <input type="text" name="name" maxlength="30"></label><input type="submit">. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      
  • Technique B.3.5.1-2 [Advisory]: Ensuring all examples of content pass the authoring tool's own accessibility checking mechanism (see Guideline B.2.2).
  • Technique B.3.5.1-3 [Advisory]: Ensuring that the documentation includes at least one model of a wide range of WCAG Level A accessible authoring practices.
  • Technique B.3.5.1-4 [Advisory]: Ensuring plug-ins that update the accessibility features of a tool also update the documentation examples.

Level AAA Success Criteria for Guideline B.3.5

• B.3.5.2 Model "AA" Accessible Practice: Any examples of authoring practices in the documentation demonstrate WCAG Level AA accessible authoring practices.
  • See Techniques for B.3.5.1 using WCAG Level AA.