[Contents] [Techniques]

W3C

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

W3C Editor's Draft 09 April 2009

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090409/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ATAG20-20090217/
Editors:
Jan Richards, Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
Jeanne Spellman, W3C
Jutta Treviranus, Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
Previous Editors:
Matt May (until June 2005 while at W3C)

[Contents] [Guidelines]

W3C

Implementation Techniques for
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Editor's Draft 28 July 2008

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-TECHS-20080707/
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20-TECHS/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2008/WD-ATAG20-TECHS-20080310/
Editors:
Jutta Treviranus, ATRC, University of Toronto
Jan Richards, ATRC, University of Toronto
Tim Boland, NIST
Jeanne Spellman, W3C
Previous Editors:
Matt May (until June 2005 while at W3C)
 

Editing Styles:

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.

This document provides non-normative information to authoring tool developers who wish to satisfy the guidelines in the "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" [ATAG20]. It includes suggested techniques, sample strategies in deployed tools, and references to other accessibility resources (such as platform-specific software accessibility guidelines) that provide additional information on how a tool may satisfy each ATAG 2.0 guideline.

The "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (ATAG 2.0) is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).

Status of This Document

Editor's Draft of ATAG 2.0

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

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

May be Superseded

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

W3C Public Draft of Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0

This is a W3C Public Working Draft. This draft integrates changes made as a result of comments received on the 23 April 2007 Public Working Draft and it has also been updated to reflect changes made to ATAG 2.0 (5 March 2008 Public Working Draft).

The Working Group seeks feedback on the following points for this draft:

Comments on this working draft are due on or before 21 April 2008. Comments on the draft should be sent to public-atag2-comments@w3.org (Public Archive).

The Working Group (AUWG) intends to publish the Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Note. A Techniques document was also published for ATAG 1.0 [ATAG10], entitled "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG10-TECHS]. The Working Group expects to update this document in response to queries raised by implementers of the Guidelines, for example to cover new technologies. Suggestions for additional techniques are welcome.

Comments on the draft are welcome at public-atag2-comments@w3.org (Public Archive).

Web Accessibility Initiative

This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the AUWG are discussed in the Working Group charter. The AUWG is part of the WAI Technical Activity.

No Endorsement

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

Patents

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.


Table of Contents


Introduction

This section is informative, except where noted.

This is a Editor's Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version 2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting developers to make the authoring tools they develop more accessible to people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech difficulties, and others. However, even authoring tools that conform to ATAG 2.0 may not be able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees and combinations of disabilities.

In order to achieve accessibility, authoring tools must address the needs of two (potentially overlapping) user groups 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.

As ATAG 2.0 guides authors in complying to WCAG 2.0, similar to the constraints of WCAG 2.0, even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Creation of authoring tools that fully address the specialized needs of these communities for is encouraged, but is beyond the scope of this document.

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

Integration of Accessibility Features

When implementing ATAG 2.0, the Working Group suggests that developers should consider close integration of features that support accessible authoring with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. This type of integration has the potential to:

This is a Working Draft of the Implementation Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. While the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20] provides a generic description of the requirements for authoring tools that are accessible to people with disabilities, these implementation techniques provide an interpretation of the guidelines as they apply to real tools. This interpretation represents the best thinking of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) and as such is a good guide to achieve conformance to ATAG 2.0. The Working Group encourages developers to implement these techniques where appropriate. However, these techniques do not provide a final definition of ATAG 2.0 conformance and it may be possible to meet the guideline requirements without following these techniques and thus this document is informative. As new methods of conforming to the guidelines come to the attention of the Working Group, these techniques will be updated.

Definition of authoring tool

This section is normative.

This section is included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].

ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any application, part of an application, or collection of applications that authors interact with to create, modify or assemble Web content to be used by other people.

The definition applies to all or part of the following types of applications:

Notes on the Definition:

  1. Any guidelines that require authors to modify content in some way always assumes that the person has author permission.
  2. Live content authoring tools (e.g., chats, collaboration tools, whiteboards, etc.) are only required to meet Part A. However, many guidelines in Part B may still usefully apply, especially if the tool archives as Web content. For more information, please see the Techniques - Appendix E: Real-time content production.

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:

Organization of the ATAG 2.0 Document

Two Parts

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 tools 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.
  2. Authoring tools must be perceivable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to perceive the functions and components of the authoring tool user interface.
  3. Authoring tools must be operable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to operate the functions and components of the authoring tool user interface.
  4. Authoring tools must be understandable - Authors with a wide range of abilities must be able to understand the user interface functions and 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 -Authoring tools should encourage the author's awareness and discovery of tools, features, or functions that support accessible authoring practices, while at the same time, integrating functions related to accessibility in order to ensure that authors make them common practice.

Note: While the requirements in Part B do not deal with the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface per se, it should be noted that any of the features (e.g., checker, tutorial) added to an authoring tool to meet the 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. While all of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be testable and some test automation may be possible, human testing will usually be required. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest).

Each of the success criteria has a link to the Techniques document that provides:

Note: Any success criteria that are judged not applicable to a particular authoring tool are treated as satisfied for conformance purposes, as long as a rationale is provided.

Implementation Techniques

The techniques are informative (i.e., non-normative).

The list of techniques for each success criteria are not exhaustive. Rather, these techniques represent an illustrative sampling of approaches. There may be many other ways a tool might be designed and still meet the normative criteria contained in the success criteria.

Some techniques are labeled as "Sufficient". These techniques are judged by the Working Group to meet the success criteria to which they apply. Conditional wording may limit the applicability of any given sufficient technique to a particular type of content or authoring tool. Inclusion does not imply that the description will be verified or is verifiable. When multiple techniques must be implemented together to be sufficient, they are labeled "Sufficient in combination".

Some techniques are labeled as "Advisory". These techniques are included as additional information.

Note: Use of "mock" screenshots is for general illustrative purposes only. They do not imply endorsement of similar tools by the Working Group or suggests that these screenshots represent the best or only implementations.

Levels of Conformance

Authoring tools may claim full conformance to ATAG 2.0 at one of three "full" 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)

ATAG 2.0 is intended to be used in conjunction with WCAG 2.0 or similar Web content accessibility guidance (e.g., WCAG 1.0, regulations that include WCAG 2.0, etc.).

The relationship is as follows:

Applicability of Techniques and Examples

Since the techniques and examples are intended to be as informative as possible, many of them are specific to certain approaches to presenting the content being edited . Where this is the case they have been marked with icons as follows:

  1. Applicable to Instruction Level editing views Source content in which the *document source* is presented (e.g., plain text editors, form-based editing views that provide direct access to the unrendered content (e.g., selecting attribute values),
  2. Applicable to Content  Rendering editing views Content rendering,
  3. Applicable to Meta-content editing views Meta-content in which authors set high-level options that the authoring tool then interprets to generate the resulting content (e.g., a content management system that only lets authors set the month and year on a built-in calendar module).

ATAG 2.0 Guidelines ATAG 2.0 Implementation Techniques

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

The guidelines and success criteria are included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].

PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible

Applicability Notes:

Scope: The success criteria in Part A apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the developer. This includes functionalities that are independent of the content being edited, such as what is sometimes referred to as the authoring tool's "chrome" (e.g., menus, button bars, status bars, etc.) and also user preferences and documentation, etc. In addition, the developers' responsibility covers certain aspects of other functionalities that reflect the content being edited (e.g., ensuring that an image label present in the content is available programmatically). However, where an accessibility problem in the user interface is caused directly by an accessibility problem in the content it is reflecting (e.g., if an image in the content lacks a label), then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface.

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

Guideline A.1.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that Web-based functionality is accessible. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: In addition to generally improving the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface, implementing Web-based functionality (e.g., editing views, documentation) using accessible Web content facilitates communication with assistive technologies via user agents.

A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (Level A): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG Level A. (Level A)

  • Technique A.1.1.1-1 [Sufficient]: Following the requirements of WCAG Level A when developing any Web-based functionality.
  • Technique A.1.1.1-2 [Advisory]: Testing Web-based authoring tool user interfaces using automated evaluation and repair tools.
    • Example: Throughout development of an authoring tool, with the tool in various representative states, the editing interface (including test content being authored) is tested using accessibility evaluation software. Problems are corrected and the process iterates

A.1.1.2 Web-Based Accessible (Level AA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG Level AA. (Level AA)

  • See Techniques for A.1.1.1 using WCAG Level AA.

A.1.1.3 Web-Based Accessible (Level AAA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG Level AAA. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for A.1.1.1 using WCAG Level AAA.

Applicability Notes:

This guideline also applies to parts of authoring tools that are Web-based (e.g., help systems).

Guideline A.1.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that non-Web-based functionality is accessible. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Following existing accessibility standards and/or platform conventions will facilitate access by all authors, including those using assistive technologies.

A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level A): Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces comply with, and cite in the conformance claim, the "Level A" requirements of standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility. The "Level A" requirements are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG Level A success criteria. (Level A)

  • Technique A.1.2.1-1 [Sufficient]: Implementing the input, focus, selection and product installation sections of accessibility guidelines and best practice documents that are relevant to the platform. These may include:
    • Eclipse: "Designing Accessible Plug-ins in Eclipse" [ECLIPSE-ACCESS]
    • Gnome/KDE:
    • Java:
      • "IBM Guidelines for Writing Accessible Applications Using 100% Pure Java" [JAVA-ACCESS]
      • "Java accessibility guidelines and checklist" [JAVA-CHECKLIST]
    • Lotus Notes: "Lotus Notes accessibility guidelines" [NOTES-ACCESS]
    • Mac OS: "Accessibility Documentation" [APPLE-ACCESS]
    • "Mac OS X keyboard shortcuts" [MACOSX-KEYS]
    • Microsoft Windows:
      • "Accessibility for applications designers" [MS-ENABLE]
    • General Guides:
      • "Application Software Design Guidelines" [TRACE-REF]
      • "Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces" ISO standard [ISO-TS-16071]
      • "Designing for Accessibility" [SUN-DESIGN]
      • "[Electronic Information Technology Access Advisory Committee] EITAAC Desktop Software standards" [EITAAC]
      • "Making Educational Software and Web Sites Accessible" [EDU-SOFT-ACCESS]
      • "Software Accessibility" [IBM-ACCESS]
      • "What is Accessible Software" [WHAT-IS]

A.1.2.2 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level AA): Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces comply with, and cite in the conformance claim, the "Level AA" requirements of standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility. The "Level AA" requirements are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG Level AA success criteria. (Level AA)

  • See Techniques for A.1.2.1 using WCAG Level AA.

A.1.2.3 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level AAA): Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces comply with, and cite in the conformance claim, the "Level AAA" requirements of standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility. The "Level AAA" requirements are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG Level AAA success criteria. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for A.1.2.1 using WCAG Level AAA.

Applicability Notes:

This guideline also applies to parts of authoring tools that are non-Web-based (e.g., client-side file uploaders).

PRINCIPLE A.2: Editing views must be perceivable

Guideline A.2.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide access to alternative equivalents in the content. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: People who have difficulty perceiving non-text objects are often able to access text alternatives of the same information because there are a variety of ways to display text (e.g., magnification, enhancement, text-to-speech, Braille output)

A.2.1.1 Alternative equivalents in the content: Editing views that render non-text content (e.g., WYSIWYG) provide authors with access to any equivalent alternatives recognized by the authoring tool. (Level A)

  • Applicable to Content Rendering editing views Technique A.2.1.1-1 [Sufficient]: In editing views that render non-text objects, displaying in an editable fashion any text alternatives (e.g., short text labels, long text descriptions) associated with the objects (e.g., within a properties dialog).
  • Technique A.2.1.1-2 [Advisory]: Providing the equivalent alternatives via an accessibility platform architecture.
  • Technique A.2.1.1-3 [Advisory]: When appropriate for a Web technology (i.e., the technology is human-readable), providing an source content editing view that allows direct editing of all properties.
  • Applicable to Content Rendering editing views Technique A.2.1.1-4 [Advisory]: Providing an option to toggle between rendered non-text objects and the text alternatives for the objects.
    • Example: An option to toggle fully rendered images with their text alternatives. On the left is the image (of the "earth rise" as seen from the moon) rendered as usual. On the right is a different rendering, this one including an area for editing the alternate text and a link to edit the long description. A small preview rendering of the image is included to provide context. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      See the example caption above for description.
  • Applicable to Content Rendering editing views Technique A.2.1.1-5 [Sufficient]: In editing views that render multimedia, also displaying any associated synchronized alternatives (e.g., captions for video, captions for audio files, audio descriptions for videos).

Applicability Notes:

This guideline does not apply to plain text editors as they do not render non-text content.

Guideline A.2.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide programatic access to all information in the editing view. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Authors need to have access to and control over both the functional significance of presentation and also, in the context of authoring, the presentation that will be experienced by the end user. This is especially important for user interface components that do not implement an accessibility platform architecture or leverage existing implementations (e.g. custom user interface components built via JavaScript and CSS). Some authors require display settings that differ from the presentation that they intend to define for the published content (e.g., using a high contrast setting during editing content that is not intended to be high contrast).

A.2.2.1 Purpose of Added Presentation: If the authoring tool modifies the presentation of the content being edited, then the functional purpose for the modification is made available via the platform (e.g., if misspelled text is underlined, the fact that it is misspelled is made available). (Level A)

  • Technique A.2.2.1-1 [Sufficient]: Making available programmatically the semantics of any presentation that is added to the editing view by the authoring tool.
    • Example: A change tracking feature displays inserted text in green and deleted text in red with a strike through. Instead of implementing this using simple CSS selectors, the XHTML elements ins and del are used, since they have associated semantics.

A.2.2.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG) renders any of the following text presentation properties and those properties are editable by any editing view (e.g., instruction level), then the properties are made available via the platform (Level A):

  • (a) font,
  • (b) style (e.g., italic, bold),
  • (c) color, and
  • (d) size.
  • Technique A.2.2.3-1 [Sufficient]: Making available via the platform, information on the size, font, foreground and background color, font weight, and position of any text that is under the control of the author.
    • Applicable to Content  Rendering editing views Example: Using a WYSIWYG authoring tool, an author is able to mark a paragraph using a "footnote" style class, then query the text to check on the rendered size of the text to ensure that the styling information has been picked up properly.

A.2.2.3 Access to Text Presentation (Enhanced): Any text presentation properties (text size, positioning, etc.) that are rendered in an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG) and are editable by any editing view are available via the platform. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for A.2.2.2, but for all text presentation properties rendered and editable by the authoring tool.

Guideline A.2.3: Ensure the independence of the authors' display preferences.

Rationale: Some authors will require display settings that differ from the presentation that they intend to define for the published content (e.g., an author uses large fonts for themselves, while editing content that is not intended to have a large font in the final content).

A.2.3.1 Independence of Display: Editing views that usually have their display characteristics set by rendering the content being edited (e.g., WYSIWYG) allows the authors' visual and audio display settings to override these characteristics without affecting the content being edited (e.g., markup, style sheets, etc.). (Level A)

  • Technique A.2.3.1-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the author with the ability to change the fonts, colors, sizing (zoom), etc. within rendered editing views (or by changing the platform display settings), independently of the ability to control the markup that is actually produced.
    • Applicable to Content Rendering editing views Example: A WYSIWYG authoring tool includes editing interface controls for setting the text and background colors as they will appear to the end user, but also includes a "View" area in its preference settings, where the author can choose to override the WYSIWYG rendering with their own text and background color settings.
  • Technique A.2.3.1-2 [Advisory]: Allowing the author to specify a preferred style sheet that is used in the editing view to override the actual "published" style of the document.

PRINCIPLE A.3: Editing views must be operable

Guideline A.3.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance keyboard access to authoring features. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Providing alternate keyboard accessibility provides access for people with limited mobility and people with visual disabilities, who cannot rely on hand-eye coordination for navigating the user interface.

A.3.1.1 Important Command Functions: If the authoring tool includes any of the following functions, authors can enable key-plus-modifier-key (or single-key) access to them (where allowed by the operating environment) (Level A):

  • (a) open help system,
  • (b) open new content,
  • (c) open existing content,
  • (d) save content,
  • (e) close content,
  • (f) cut/copy/paste,
  • (g) undo/redo, and
  • (h) open find/replace function.
  • Technique A.3.1.1-1 [Sufficient]: Providing key-plus-modifier-key (or single-key) access for all of the functions listed here.
    • Example: On a Windows platform, an authoring tool uses the following keyboard commands: opening help system (e.g., F1); open new content (e.g., ctrl-N); open existing content (e.g., ctrl-O); save content (e.g., ctrl-S); close content (e.g., ctrl-W); cut/copy/paste (e.g., ctrl-X, ctrl-C, ctrl-V); undo/redo (e.g., ctrl-Z, ctrl-Y); open find/replace function (e.g., ctrl-F, ctrl-H).
  • Technique A.3.1.1-2 [Advisory]: Following platform conventions when choosing keystrokes, such as:
  • Technique A.3.1.1-3 [Advisory]: Expanding direct keyboard access beyond the functions listed in this success criterion to other frequently used functions of a tool (e.g., to perform text formatting, move quickly between windows, etc.)

A.3.1.2 Importing Content Keyboard Trap: The authoring tool prevents keyboard traps as follows (Level A):

  • (a) in the UI: if keyboard focus can be moved to a component using the keyboard, then focus can be moved away from that component using standard sequential keyboard commands (e.g., TAB key) and
  • (b) in the rendered editing views: provides a documented direct keyboard command that will always restore keyboard focus to a known location (e.g., the menus) and
  • (c) in the rendered editing views: provides a documented direct keyboard command that will always move keyboard focus to a subsequent focusable element

Applicability Notes:

Web-based authoring tools may rely on the keyboard navigation functions of the user agent listed in the conformance profile to satisfy some of these success criteria.

Guideline A.3.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Enable time-independent interaction. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: People who have difficulty typing, operating the mouse, or processing information can be prevented from using systems with short time limits.

A.3.2.1 Data Saved: If the authoring tool ends an authoring session due to a time limit (e.g., authenticated session expires), then authors have the global option to ensure that the content being edited is saved. For Web-based authoring tools, this applies to any content that has already been submitted to the server by the user agent. (Level A)

A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: The author is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g. "press the space bar"). (Level A)

  • Technique A.3.2.2-1 [Sufficient]: Providing a preference setting to universally extend all authoring tool-controlled time limits.
  • Technique A.3.2.2-2 [Sufficient]: Allowing the author to extend authoring-controlled time limits whenever they occur.

A.3.2.3 Moving Targets: If the user interface includes any moving targets for authors' actions (e.g.,a selectable component of an animation), then authors can stop that movement. (Level A)

  • Technique A.3.2.3-1 [Sufficient]: All components that can be targets for author actions can be stopped.
    • Example: In a timeline-based animation editor, a draggable time indicator moves when the animation is being previewed. This movement can be stopped with the "Stop" button.

Applicability Notes:

Several of the success criteria in this guideline only apply when there are time limits put on the author.

Guideline A.3.3 [For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Flashing can cause seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.

A.3.3.1 Static View: If an editing view renders content (e.g., WYSIWYG) then the author has the global option of a static view in which time-based content appears in a fixed state. (Level A)

Guideline A.3.4 [For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance navigation and editing via content structure. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools use the structure present in the content to simplify navigation and editing.

A.3.4.1 Edit by Structure: If an editing view displays a structured element set, then authors can, with a simple action, select any element in the set and perform editing functions (e.g., cut, copy, paste, presentation) on that element, its contents, and its sub-elements. (Level A)

  • Technique A.3.4.1-1 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that when an element is selected, any content, including sub-elements, of the element are also selected. Then, ensuring that when a selected element with content, including sub-elements, is the subject of an operation (cut, copy, styling, delete) the element's content should also be subject to the same operation unless the operation targets the element only. Note that various editing functions will apply differently when performed on a selected element. These differences might be classified according to their scope, as follows:
    (a) "element, content and sub-elements": These functions target the entire selection. Examples of these functions include cut, copy, and delete.
    • Example: In an HTML editor , when a <table> element is selected and the "delete" operation is performed, the entire table is deleted including sub-elements ( <tr> and <td>) and any text content etc. within the table.
  • (b) "element only": These functions only target the top level element of the selection, even if the effect cascades down to sub-element content when it is rendered. Examples of functions of this type include, "Emphasis" which should apply styling to the top level element (e.g., <p>) while not making any source changes to sub-elements (e.g., strong) (even though the content of sub-elements may be rendered differently) and "strip element tags" that deletes the markup of the top level element without affecting its sub-element.
    • Example: In an HTML editor, when a <table> element is selected and the "strip element tags" operation is performed, the operation targets the <table> only, so this set of tags is removed, leaving sub-elements ( <tr> and <td>) and any text content etc.
  • (c) "content and sub-elements only": These functions target the content, including sub-elements of the top level element of the selection without having any affect on the markup of that top level element. An example of this might be a “Replace Contents” function:

A.3.4.2 Navigate By Element Type: If an editing view displays a structured element set, authors can move the editing focus forward/backward to the next identical element. (Level AA)

A.3.4.3 Navigate By Headings: If an editing view displays a structured element set, authors can move the editing focus forward/backward to the heading, regardless of level. (Level AA)

A.3.4.4 Navigate Tree Structures: If an editing view displays a structured element set, authors can, with a simple action, move the editing focus from any element to other elements in the set with any of the following relationships (if they exist) (Level AA):

  • (a) Parent: the element immediately above,
  • (b) Child: the first element immediately below,
  • (c) Previous Sibling: the element immediately preceding at the same level, and
  • (d) Next Sibling: the element immediately following at the same level.
  • Technique A.3.4.4-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the ability to move focus from any element to the element that contains it (i.e., parent element), if any. Also providing the ability to move focus from any element to the first sub-element that it contains (i.e., first child element), if any. Also providing the ability to move focus from any element to the element immediately preceding it as a sub-element of the same parent element (i.e., previous sibling). Also providing the ability to move focus from any element to the element immediately following it as a sub-element of the same parent element (i.e., next sibling).
    • Applicable to Content Rendering editing views Example: An authoring tool in which a <tr> element has current focus and is therefore highlighted in the editing view. As well, breadcrumbs in the status bar trace the path from the root element to the current element, <html> <body> <table> <tr>. A pop-up menu from the selected element shows that keystrokes are available to move the selection focus to the parent element, <table>, of the current element, to the child elements, in this case two <td> elements and to the next and previous element pointed to by the same parent element (in this case to preceding and following <tr> elements). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      See the example caption above for description.
  • Technique A.3.4.4-2 [Advisory]: Providing an "outline" or "structure" view of the document that organizes the structured element set into a document tree or graph.
  • Technique A.3.4.4-3 [Advisory]: If loops are possible within the structured element set, providing a mechanism for alerting the author when they have completed a loop.
  • Technique A.3.4.4-4 [Advisory]: Ensuring that a smooth transition exists between navigation via the content structure to a particular element and commencing to edit that element.

Guideline A.3.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to navigate to arbitrary points within editing views.

A.3.5.1 Text Search: A function is provided that allows text search of the content, which meets the following conditions (Level AA):

  • (a) Search All Editable: can search any textual information (including text content, text alternatives for non-text objects, metadata, markup) that is editable using the authoring tool.
  • (b) Bi-Directional: can search backwards and forwards. [UAAG 2.0]
  • (c) Case Sensitive: can search in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes. [UAAG 2.0]
  • (d) May Switch Views: permissible to require authors to switch editing views to perform search results (e.g., from WYSIWYG to instruction level to search for markup tags).
  • Technique A.3.5.1-1 [Sufficient]: Supporting bi-directional, case sensitive searching for plain text sequences within the content (i.e., text between the open and close tags of an element, text in a content management database) and within text alternatives for non-text content (i.e., short text labels, long text descriptions, etc.) even when this textual information is actually encoded as part of the markup (e.g., as an attribute value).
    • Example: Searching for a term yields occurrences within regular page content but also in the alt-text of images, long descriptive text, and metadata values.
    • Example: Searching for the text string "able", with the source code option checked, yields results that include <table> elements.
  • Technique A.3.5.1-2 [Advisory]: Providing structure-based searching that takes into account structural roles and relationships.
    • Example: A search facility that makes effective use of structure. Here the author has chosen to find the "element" with the name "img", "with attribute" "height" "equal to" "100", where each value in quotation marks was editable. The replacement action is to "set attribute" "height" to "50". The following checkbox options are available "match case", "ignore white space" and "search text alternatives". The facility also includes the following buttons "Find Next", "Find all", "Replace", "Replace All", "Close" and "Help". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
      See the example caption above for description.
  • Technique A.3.5.1-3 [Advisory]: Providing more advanced search options, such as:
    • text search options such as replacement, wildcard characters, whole word matching, search repetition, and highlighting of all occurrences.
    • option to search the content only, the markup only, or both.
    • use metadata (per WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20]) to assist searching of large collections, or of timed presentations.
    • for tools that manage a database or multiple files, provide a search function that can search through the different pieces of content at once.
    • allow the author to select an area by similarity to the search probe (e.g., closeness of color in an image editor, etc.)

Applicability Notes:

Web-based authoring tools may rely on the "find" function of the user agent listed in the conformance profile to help perform searches.

Guideline A.3.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Providing the ability to save and reload sets of keyboard and display preference settings benefits people using multi-user tools as well as people who have needs that differ over time (e.g., due to fatigue).

A.3.6.1 Save Settings: Preference settings are stored for any of the following that the authoring tool controls (i.e., not controlled by the platform) (Level AA):

  • Technique A.3.6.1-1 [Sufficient]: Storing configuration options (not controlled by the platform) for (a) keyboard operability, (b) the visual display, (c) for the auditory display.
    • Example: In a Web-based authoring tool, the author must log in. Once they do, they are presented with display/control preferences profiles that they have previously customized. The author can change their profile at any time.

A.3.6.2 Multiple Sets: Choosing between multiple sets of preferences (e.g., personal profiles, personal settings) are supported for any of the following that the authoring tool controls (i.e., not controlled by the platform) (Level AAA):

  • Technique A.3.6.2-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the option of multiple configuration sets of options. Each set contains the configuration settings (not controlled by the platform) for (a) keyboard operability, (b) the visual display, (c) for the auditory display.

A.3.6.3 Options Wizard: Authors are provided with an accessibility option-setting "wizard" to configure options related to Part A. (Level AAA)

  • Technique A.3.6.3-1 [Sufficient]: Providing a wizard that walks the user through the configuration options, providing explanations and previews of how the configuration options will change the display.
    • Example: The wizard follows an interview format, asking the author about general preference areas (e.g., seeing the screen, using the keyboard) and only becoming more detailed if the author affirms an area.

Guideline A.3.7 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that previews are as accessible as existing user agents. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Preview features are provided in many authoring tools because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how content will appear to end users in a user agent. Authors with disabilities need to be able to follow the same workflow.

Note: Previews are treated differently than editing views because authors, including those with disabilities, will not be well-served if preview features diverge too much from the actual functionality of available user agents. Therefore, preview features are exempted from necessarily having to meet all of the other requirements in Part A of this guidelines document, if they meet this guideline.

A.3.7.1 Return Mechanism: If a preview is provided, then it is possible to return from the preview using a simple action which is documented in the help system. (Level A)

A.3.7.2 Preview: If a preview is provided, then it meets at least one of the following (Level A):

  • (a) Existing User Agent: the preview makes use of an existing user agent that is specified in the conformance profile (e.g., opening the content in a third-party browser, browser component, video player, etc.)
  • (b) Part A.1: the preview meets all of the Level A guidelines in Principle A.1 of these guidelines, or
  • (c) UAAG: the preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines [UAAG].
  • Technique A.3.7.2-1 [Sufficient]: Allowing the author to locate a user agent on the platform with which to perform the preview).
  • Technique A.3.7.2-2 [Sufficient]: For Web-based authoring tools that are already running in a user agent, use that same user agent to perform be the preview.
  • Technique A.3.7.2-3 [Advisory]: Allowing the author to maintain a list of user agents to be used for previewing.
  • Technique A.3.7.2-4 [Advisory]: Helping the author to find a user agent to perform the preview, by auto-scanning the system for known user agents.
  • Technique A.3.7.2-5 [Advisory]: Bundling user agent installer files or providing a list of download sites for appropriate user agents.
  • Technique A.3.7.2-6 [Sufficient]: Ensuring that the entire preview (content view and the rest of the user interface) meets all of the requirements of Part A that might be applicable to a browser.
  • Technique A.3.7.2-7 [Sufficient]: Providing conformance tests to show that the preview feature meets UAAG 1.0.

PRINCIPLE A.4: Editing views must be understandable

Guideline A.4.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Help users avoid and correct mistakes. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

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

A.4.1.1 Undo Content Changes: Authoring actions are either reversible by an "undo" function or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible. (Level A)

A.4.1.2 Undo Setting Changes: Actions that modify authoring tool settings are either reversible or include a warning to the author that the setting modification is irreversible. (Level A)

  • Technique A.4.1.2-1 [Sufficient]: All setting changes are reversible using the preferences.

A.4.1.3 Redo: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent content "undo(s)" (i.e., a "redo" function). (Level AA)

  • Technique A.4.1.3-1 [Sufficient]: Including undo actions in the queue of the five most recent actions (see Techniques for A.4.1.1).

A.4.1.4 Multiple Undos: Authors can reverse at least 5 consecutive reversible authoring actions. (Level AAA)

  • Technique A.4.1.4-1 [Sufficient]: Maintaining a queue of the five most recent actions (from most to least recent) and providing a function that can reverse the actions one-by-one starting with the most recent.

Applicability Notes:

  • Web-based authoring tools may rely on the "undo" function of the user agent listed in the conformance profile to perform the undo function for some editing actions that do not involve server communication (e.g., typing in a text area).
  • It is acceptable to collect text entry actions (e.g., typed words, a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.
  • It is acceptable for certain committing actions (e.g., "save", "publish") to reset the undo history.

Guideline A.4.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface including all accessibility features. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: While intuitive user interface design is valuable to many authors, some people may still not be able to understand or be able to operate the authoring tool user interface without proper documentation.

A.4.2.1 Document Accessibility Features: All features that are specifically required to meet Part A of these guidelines (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.) are documented. (Level A)

  • Technique A.4.2.2-1 [Sufficient]: Documenting all aspects of the user interface covered by Part A of these guidelines (including keyboard accessibility, display configurability, etc.).
  • Technique A.4.2.2-2 [Advisory]: Providing a documentation index to accessibility features.
  • Technique A.4.2.2-3 [Advisory]: Providing additional forms of help, including context sensitive help.

A.4.2.2 Accessibility Feature Tutorials: Tutorials are provided for some of the features that are specifically required to meet Part A of these guidelines. (Level AAA)

Applicability Notes:

The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and A.1.2.

PART B: Support the production of accessible content

Applicability Notes:

  1. Authors Availability: Any success criteria in Part B that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions when authors are available.
  2. Responsibility After Authoring Sessions: Authoring tools are not responsible for accessibility problems that result from carrying out instructions made by the author during authoring sessions (e.g., the content of a third-party feed specified by the author), but they are responsible if the changes are automatically generated (e.g., the developer makes site wide changes to a CMS).
  3. Existing Technologies: The success criteria in Part B only apply to support for accessible authoring practices that are relevant to technologies that the authoring tool already has the ability to create or edit. For example, a markup authoring tool that adds images by simply linking to their URIs would be required to support the production of alternative text for images in the markup, but it would not be required to add image editing functionality to ensure sufficient contrast in case any images are of text.
  4. Authoring Systems: As per the definition of authoring tool, several software tools can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B. (e.g. a authoring tool could make use of a 3rd party software accessibility checking and repair program.

PRINCIPLE B.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled

Guideline B.1.1 Support Web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Choosing technologies which support the possibility of accessible authoring is the first step in ensuring that the content produced is accessible.

B.1.1.1 Tool Choice of Technologies (Level A): Any Web content technologies that are automatically selected by the authoring tool can conform to WCAG Level A. (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.
    • Applicable to meta-content authoring functions 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:

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. (Level A)

  • 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".

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. (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. (Level AA)

  • See Techniques for B.1.1.2 using level WCAG Level AA.

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. (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. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for B.1.1.2 using level WCAG Level AAA.

Guideline B.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Accessibility information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility across transformations and conversions.

B.1.2.1 Target Preserves Accessibility Information : If the target technology of the transformation or conversion can preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the accessibility information is preserved and available for end users in the resulting content. (Level A)

B.1.2.x Target Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the target technology of the transformation or conversion cannot preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the authoring tool (Level A):

  • provides the author with the option to retain the information in another way if possible (e.g., as a "comment", by saving a backup copy) and
  • notifies the author that this will result in accessibility problems in the target.
  • 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.

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. (Level AA)

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 (Level AA):

  • (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.

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.

Guideline B.1.3 Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Authoring tools that automatically generate content that is not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.

See Also: If accessibility information is required from authors during the automatic generation process, see Guideline B.2.1. If templates or other pre-authored content are involved, see Guideline B.2.5.

B.1.3.1 Automatic Accessible (Level A): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level A prior to publishing.

  • 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).

B.1.3.2 Automatic Accessible (Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level AA prior to publishing. (Level AA)

  • See Techniques for B.1.3.1 using WCAG Level AA.

B.1.3.3 Automatic Accessible (Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level AAA prior to publishing. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for B.1.3.1 using WCAG Level AAA.

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.).

PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content

Applicability Notes:

Guideline B.2.1 Guide authors to create accessible content. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: By guiding authors from the outset towards the creation and maintenance of accessible content, accessibility problems are mitigated and less repair and retrofit effort is required.

See also: For more information on how to prompt, see ATAG 2.0 Techniques - Appendix A: Prompting for Different Types of Accessibility Information. Repair features (see Guidelin B.2.3) are also an important aspect of author guidance.

Implementation Notes: Prompting in the ATAG 2.0 context is not to be interpreted as necessarily implying intrusive prompts, such as pop-up dialog boxes. Instead, ATAG 2.0 uses prompt in a wider sense, to mean any tool initiated process of eliciting author input that is triggered by author actions (e.g., adding or editing content that requires accessibility information from the author in order to prevent the introduction of accessibility problems). The reason for this is that it is crucial that that accessibility information be correct and complete. This is more likely to occur if the author has been convinced to provide the information voluntarily. Therefore, overly restrictive mechanisms are not recommended for meeting this guideline. The author experience of prompting will be very similar to that of checking (see Guideline B.2.2) for some implementations. For example, in a tool that checks continuously for accessibility problems, the markings used to highlight discovered problems can be considered to be a form of prompting.

B.2.1.1 Guide Accessible (Level A): 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 (Level A).

  • 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.

B.2.1.3 Guide Accessible (Level AA): 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. (Level AA)

  • See Techniques for B.2.1.1 using WCAG Level AA.
  • See Techniques for B.2.1.2 using WCAG Level AA.

B.2.1.5 Guide Accessible (Level AAA): 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. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for B.2.1.1 using WCAG Level AAA.
  • See Techniques for B.2.1.2 using WCAG Level AAA.

Guideline B.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

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

Implementation Notes: Despite prompting assistance from the tool (see Guideline B.2.1), accessibility problems may still be introduced. For example, the author may cause accessibility problems while coding by hand or by opening content with existing accessibility problems for editing. In these cases, the prompting mechanisms that operate when markup is added or edited (i.e., insertion dialogs and property windows) must be backed up by a more general checking system that can detect and alert the author to problems anywhere within the content (e.g., attribute, element, programmatic object, etc.). It is preferable that checking mechanisms be well integrated with repair mechanisms (see Guideline B.2.3), so that when the checking system detects a problem and informs the author, the tool immediately offers assistance to the author.

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). (Level A)

  • 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. (Level A)

  • 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.2.2.3 Help Authors Locate: 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), the relevant content is identified (e.g., displaying the surrounding text, "Is a sign language interpretation provided?") (Level A)

  • Technique B.2.2.3-1 [Sufficient]: Identifying the entire span of elements covered by a potential accessibility problem.
    • Applicable to instruction level editing views Example: A instruction-level authoring tool displays errors in a separate pane by the line number of the first element in the span.
    • Applicable to instruction level editing views Example: A instruction-level authoring tool displays errors in-line by underlining all of the markup for the affected span of elements.
    • Applicable to Content  Rendering editing views 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. (Level A)

  • 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
    • Applicable to Content Rendering editing views 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)
      See the example caption above for description.

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. (Level AA)

  • 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. (Level AA)

  • 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. (Level AA)

  • 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. (Level AA)

  • Technique B.2.2.8-1 [Sufficient]: Providing the option of storing accessibility status information using the IMS AccessForAll Meta-data mechanism [ACCESSFORALL].

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. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for B.2.2.1 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").

Guideline B.2.3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Repair as an integral part of the authoring process greatly enhances the utility of checking and increases the likelihood that accessibility problems will be properly addressed.

Implementation Notes: Once a problem has been detected by the author or the tool (see Guideline B.2.2), the tool may assist the author to correct the problem. As with accessibility checking, the extent to which accessibility correction can be automated depends on the nature of the problems. Some repairs are easily automated, whereas others that require human judgment may be semi-automated at best.

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. (Level A)

  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.
    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)
      See the example caption above for description.
    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.

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

  • See Techniques for B.2.3.1 using WCAG Level AA.

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

  • See Techniques for B.2.3.1 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

Guideline B.2.4 Assist authors to manage, edit, and reuse equivalent alternatives for non-text objects. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Improperly generated equivalent alternatives can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.

@@http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008JulSep/0083.html@@

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. (Level A)

  • 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. (Level A)

  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.

B.2.4.3 Acceptable Sources: Authoring tools only supply equivalent alternatives from the following sources (Level AA):

  • (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 are recognized by the authoring tool as 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.

B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors can store, for future reuse, both of the following author-assigned equivalent alternatives (as applicable) (Level AAA):

  • 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).

Guideline B.2.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Templates and other pre-authored content (e.g., clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.) that are not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.

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. (Level A)

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. (Level A)

  • 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 (Level A):

  • (a) Indicate: the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates.
  • (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.

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. (Level AA)

  • 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. (Level AA)

  • 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. (Level AA)

  • 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 (Level AA):

  • (a) Indicate: the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content.
  • (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. (Level AA)

  • See Techniques for B.2.5.3 for ways in which the status might be stored.

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. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for B.2.5.1 using WCAG Level AAA.

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.

PRINCIPLE B.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated

Guideline B.3.1 Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Some authors are most likely to use the first and easiest authoring action they encounter in the authoring tool user interface that achieves their intended mainstream rendered outcome.

B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent (Level A): If authors are provided with multiple options for an authoring task, give equal or greater prominence to any options that will result in content conforming to *WCAG* Level A.

B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent (Level AA): If authors are provided with multiple options for an authoring task, give equal or greater prominence to any options that will result in content conforming to *WCAG* Level AA.

B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent (Level AAA): If authors are provided with multiple options for an authoring task, give equal or greater prominence to any options that will result in content conforming to *WCAG* Level AAA.

  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.

Guideline B.3.2 Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessible authoring practices. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: When accessibility considerations are a natural part of the workflow, they become a routine part of authoring.

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. (Level AA)

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 AA)

Guideline B.3.3 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available. [Techniques][Return to Guideline]

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

B.3.3.1 Active by Default: All accessible content support features are active by default. (Level A)

  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.

B.3.3.2 Reactivate Option: If authors deactivate an accessible content support feature, then they can always reactivate the feature. (Level A)

  • Technique B.3.3.2-1 [Sufficient]: Providing an authoring tool preferences area where any deactivated features can be reactivated.

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. (Level AA)

  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.

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). (Level AA)

  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.
  • 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).
    • Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions 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)
      See the example caption above for description.
  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.

Guideline B.3.4 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented. [Techniques][Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.g., prompts for alternatives, accessibility checkers), some authors may not be able to find or use them.

B.3.4.1 Instructions: Instructions for using the accessible content support features appear in the documentation. (Level A)

  • 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)
      See the example caption above for description.

B.3.4.2 Accessible Authoring Tutorial: A tutorial on the accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided. (Level AAA)

  • 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.

Guideline B.3.5 Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible. [Techniques] [Return to Guideline]

Rationale: Demonstrating accessible authoring as routine practice will encourage its acceptance by some authors.

B.3.5.1 Model Accessible Practice (Minimum): Any examples of authoring practices in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG Level A accessible authoring practices. (Level AA)

  • 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.).
    • Applicable to instruction level editing views 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)
      See the example caption above for description.
  • 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.

B.3.5.2 Model "AA" Accessible Practice (Enhanced): Any examples of authoring practices in the documentation demonstrate WCAG Level AA accessible authoring practices. (Level AAA)

  • See Techniques for B.3.5.1 using WCAG Level AA.

Applicability Notes:

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


Conformance

This section is normative.

This section is included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].

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

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

Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

  1. Name and Affiliation of the Claimant
  2. The date of the claim.
  3. The ATAG 2.0 version, publishing date and status (e.g., "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, 24 November 2008, Working Draft ")
  4. 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. Note: The burden is on the conformance claimant rather than the developer of any of the software components.
  5. The conformance profile, which must include the following:
    • (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that has been satisfied (see Conformance Levels).
    • (b) A list of the Web content technologies edited/produced by the authoring tool. These are the only technologies covered by the conformance claim.
    • (c)For each success criterion:
      • a declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied or
      • a declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not.
    • (d) A list of any other Web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are not covered by the claim.
    • (e) 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).
      • For non-user agent platforms, provide:

Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

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

"Progress 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 that has not been published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG.


Appendix A: Prompting for Various Types of Accessibility Information:

This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.

1. Prompting and assisting for short text labels (e.g., alternate text, titles, short text metadata fields, rubies for ideograms):

Example A-1a: A dialog box offers short text labels for reuse. It shows an "Insert Image" dialog box a thumbnail image of the "earthrise" graphic along with entry fields for "src", "alt", "longdesc", "height" and "width". The "alt" entry field is drop-down list that is shown with several short labels for the same image. The first is a visual description in English ("An earth rise as seen from the moon"), the second is a visual description in French ("Une vue do la terre de la lune") and the third is an English functional label used if the image serves as a link ("Go to pictures of the earth"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

Applicable to instruction level editing views Example A-1b: A instruction-level authoring interface offers short text labels for reuse. It shows the author midway through adding markup for an image. After adding the src attribute value the author has pressed the spacebar, causing the tool to prompt them with the alt attribute along with several attribute values, including a visual description in English (alt="An earth rise as seen from the moon"), a visual description in French (alt="Une vue de la terre de la lune") and an English functional label used if the image serves as a link (alt="Go to pictures of the earth"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

2. Prompting and assisting for multiple text labels (e.g., image map area labels):

Example A-2: An authoring interface that prompts for image map area text labels. It is comprised of a list with two columns. In the right-hand column is the URL for each image map area. This can be used as a hint by the author as they fill in the text labels (left-hand column). A checkbox at the bottom provides the option of using the text labels to create a set of text links below the image map. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(3): Prompting and assisting for long text descriptions (e.g., longdesc text, table summaries, site information, long text metadata fields):

Example A-3: An authoring interface that prompts for long text descriptions. A "description required" checkbox controls whether the rest of the interface is available. If a description is required, the author then has the choice of opening an existing description file or writing (and saving) a new one. If they choose to use an existing file, there is a text entry area for the name along with a button to browse the file system. If they choose to compose a new description, there is a text entry area for the description followed by a text field for the file name and a button to save it to that location. In the situation shown, the author chooses to use an existing description of "earthrise" so the file name containing the description is shown. In addition, the text of the description from the file is loaded into the compose area ("The earth hangs in the pitch black sky above the gray horizon of the moon. The dazzling blue sphere is covered with creamy white streamers of cloud.") in case the author would like to use this text as a basis for a new description. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(4): Prompting and assisting for form control labels:

Example A-4: A form properties list with five columns that allows the author to simultaneously decide the following for each field: the tab order, form name, field label, control type, and accesskey. In this example, two form field labels are missing, causing prompts (yellow highlighting of the cells and red icons) to be displayed. "Move up" and "move down" buttons are provided. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(5): Prompting and assisting for form field place-holders:

(6): Prompting and assisting for TAB order sequence:

(7): Prompting and assisting for navigational shortcuts (e.g., keyboard shortcuts, skip links, voice commands, etc.):

Applicable to instruction level editing views Example A-7: A instruction-level authoring interface that suggests access key values. The following markup can be seen: "<body><p>Here is one of the most famous photographs taken from the <a href="moon.html" > moon.</a></p><It was taken with a special <a href=camera.html" accesskey="c">camera.</p>". A pop-up menu, centered on the word "moon" suggest accesskey="moon", because "moon" begins with "m", followed by the rest of the alphabet in order. Accesskey="c" is missing, however, since it is already used as an accesskey later in the document (for the "camera" link). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(8): Prompting and assisting for contrasting colors:

Example A-8: A dialog box for choosing sufficiently contrasting color combinations. The dialog box has two tabs: one for text color and one for background color. A "hide low contrast choices" checkbox has been selected, so the palette of colors has been pre-screened so that sufficient contrast between the text and the current background color is assured. All other colors have been grayed out. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(9): Prompting and assisting for alternative resources for multimedia (transcripts, captions, video transcripts, audio descriptions, signed translations, still images, etc.):

(10): Prompting and assisting for metadata:

(11): Prompting and assisting for document structure:

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functionsExample A-11: A WYSIWYG authoring tool that detects opportunities for enhancing structure and alerts the author. On the left side is the WYSIWYG editing view with the title of the page ("Mars") displayed with a blue underline. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for the title and sees the following options: "Repair: Mark as heading (a sub-menu displays the different levels of header (i.e., h1, h2, etc.)) for the author to choose", "Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". On the right, an element inspector makes clear that the title is currently marked up as a paragraph. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(12): Prompting and assisting for tabular structure:

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions Example A-12: A WYSIWYG authoring tool that prompts the author to decide whether the top row of a table contains the table header cells. The top row of the rendered table is outlined in blue to indicate an accessibility problem. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for one of the cells in the top row and sees the following options: "Repair: Set as header row", "Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(13): Prompting and assisting for style sheets:

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions Example A-13: A WYSIWYG authoring tool that indicates to the author that a heading has been misused to indicate emphasis. In the WYSIWYG editing view, some text ("VERY HOT") is rendered large and bold because it has been improperly marked as a heading and it is therefore marked with a blue underline as an accessibility problem. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for the text and sees the following options: "Repair: Mark with style (a sub-menu displays the different styles available: .bodytext, .quotetext, .hot_emphasis, .cold_emphasis)", "Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". (Source: mockup by AUWG).
See the example caption above for description.

(14): Prompting and assisting for clearly written text:

Applicable to instruction level editing views Example A-14a: A instruction-level authoring interface that indicates the reading level of a page and whether it exceeds a limit determined by the author's preference settings. The code view includes the following markup: <body><h1>Mars</h1><p>Mars is the fourth planet in the solar system, orbiting at a distance of 1.5 AU, with a period of 687 days.</p></body></html>. Then in a status bar below the text entry area, is a reading level display: "Reading Level: 11.2 (target<8)". The 11.2 is highlighted with a yellow background and bold text to indicate that the target is exceeded. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions Example A-14b: An authoring interface that prompts the author to enter an acronym expansion. The rendered text reads: "The 'habitable zone' around a star is the region of that star’s solar system in which liquid water is possible. The continuous habitable zone (CHZ) is the region of the solar system which has remained in the zone, even during changes in the star’s radiation pattern." The acronym "CHZ" is identified with a blue underline as an accessibility problem. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for the acronym and sees the following options: "Repair: Enter acronym expansion…", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(15): Prompting and assisting for device independent handlers:

(16): Prompting and assisting for non-text supplements to text:

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions Example A-16: An authoring interface for prompting the author about whether a paragraph that contains many numbers might be made more clear with the addition of a chart or graph. On the left side of the interface is the rendered text: " Planet Orbits: The inner planets orbit the sun relatively quickly with Mercury orbiting the sun in 88 days, Venus in 224 days, Earth in 365 days, and Mars in 687 days. Compare this to Jupiter’s, 4332 day orbit." This text is marked with a yellow exclamation mark icon. On the right side is the following explanation of the error icon: "This paragraph contains 5 numbers. Would readers benefit if a chart or graph of this information was added?". "Yes" and "no" buttons are provided. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(17): Prompting and assisting the author to make use of up-to-date technologies:


Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation

This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.

(a) Automated Checking:

In automated checking, the tool is able to check for accessibility problems automatically, with no human intervention required. This type of check is usually appropriate for checks of a syntactic nature, such as the use of deprecated elements or a missing attribute, in which the meaning of text or images does not play a role.

Applicable to instruction level editing views Example B-1: A summary interface for a code-based authoring tool that displays the results of an automated check. The display is a tree-view where the leftmost nodes are the names of errors ("Image missing alternate text" and "Text boxes missing labels) with number of errors appended (e.g., "[6]") and the sub-items are the problem instances with line numbers appended (e.g., "(Line:45)"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions Example B-2: A WYSIWYG interface that displays the results of an automated check in a WYSIWYG authoring view using blue highlighting around or under rendered elements (in this case, the "earthrise" image and some "blinking text"), identifying accessibility problems for the author to correct. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

Applicable to instruction level editing views Example B-3: An authoring interface of an automated check in a instruction-level authoring view. The text is: "<body><p>Image:</p><img href="pic123.gif"/><hr/><blink>Blinking text</blink></body></html>".In this view, the text of elements with accessibility problems (img and blink) is shown in a blue font, instead of the default black font. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(b) Semi-Automated Checking:

In semi-automated checking, the tool is able to identify potential problems, but still requires human judgment by the author to make a final decision on whether an actual problem exists. Semi-automated checks are usually most appropriate for problems that are semantic in nature, such as descriptions of non-text objects, as opposed to purely syntactic problems, such as missing attributes, that lend themselves more readily to full automation.

Example B-4: A dialog box that appears once the tool has detected an image without a description attribute. However, since not all images require description, the author is prompted to make the final decision ("Does this image require descriptive text?"). The author can confirm the at this is indeed an accessibility problem by choosing and move on to the repair stage by choosing "Yes" or press "No" to mark the potential problem, as not a problem at all. Additional help is available in the form of a tip: "An image requires descriptive text when the information it contains cannot be conveyed in 10 words or less using an alternate text label." (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(c) Manual Checking:

In manual checking, the tool provides the author with instructions for detecting a problem, but does not automate the task of detecting the problem in any meaningful way. As a result, the author must decide on their own whether or not a problem exists. Manual checks are discouraged because they are prone to human error, especially when the type of problem in question may be easily detected by a more automated utility, such as an element missing a particular attribute.

Example B-5: A dialog box that reminds the author to check if there are any words in other languages in the document with the message: "Does this document contain any words or phrases in a different language than the main content?". The author can move on to the repair stage by pressing "Yes" or press "No" to mark the potential problem, as not a problem at all. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.


Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation

This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.

(a) Repair Instructions:

In manual repairing, the tool provides the author with instructions for making the necessary correction, but does not automate the task in any substantial way. For example, the tool may move the cursor to start of the problem, but since this is not a substantial automation, the repair would still be considered "manual". Manual correction tools leave it up to the author to follow the instructions and make the repair by themselves. This is the most time consuming option for authors and allows the most opportunity for human error.

Applicable to instruction level editing views Example C-1: Repair instructions in a code level editing view. In this case, the following markup is being edited: <body><p>Image:</p><img href="pic123.gif"/><hr/><blink>Blinking text</blink></body></html>. Since the problems have already been detected in the checking step and the selected offending elements in a code view (<img href="pic123.gif"/> and <blink>Blinking text</blink>) have been highlighted in blue text. When the author puts focus on the highlighted text, a short repair instruction ("Repair: Add 'alt' attribute") appears in a status bar with a button than will open a longer explanation in the help system. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(b) Semi-Automated:

In semi-automated repairing, the tool can provide some automated assistance to the author in performing corrections, but the author's input is still required before the repair can be complete. For example, the tool may prompt the author for a plain text string, but then be capable of handling all of the markup required to add the text string to the content. In other cases, the tool may be able to narrow the choice of repair options, but still rely on the author to make the final selection. This type of repair is usually appropriate for corrections of a semantic nature.

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions Example C-2: A semi-automated repair in a WYSIWYG editing view. The author has right-clicked on an image of the "earthrise" that has been highlighted with a blue outline by the automated checker system. This has brought up a pop up menu with the following choices: "Repair: Set Alt -Text: 'An earth rise as seen from the moon'", "Enter different alt-text…", " Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", "Help...". The author must decide whether the label text that the tool suggests is appropriate. Whichever option the author chooses, the tool will handle the details of updating the content. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(c) Automated:

In automated repairing, the tool is able to make repairs automatically, with no author input required. For example, a tool may be capable of automatically adding a document type to the header of a file that lacks this information. In these cases, very little, if any, author notification is required. This type of repair is usually appropriate for corrections of a syntactic or repetitive nature.

Applicable to instruction level editing views Example C-3: An announcement that an automated repair has been completed ("All instances of <blink> have been replaced with CSS styling according to your preferences."). The author selects an "ok" to proceed. An "undo" button is provided in case the author wishes to reverse the operation. In some cases, automated repairs might be completed with no author notification at all. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.


Appendix D: Author Interruption Timing Options

This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.

(a) Negotiated Interruption: A negotiated interruption is caused by interface mechanisms (e.g., icons or highlighting of the element, audio feedback) that alert the author to a problem, but remain flexible enough to allow the author to decide whether to take immediate action or address the issue at a later time. Since negotiated interruptions are less intrusive than immediate or scheduled interruptions, they can often be better integrated into the design workflow and have the added benefit of informing the author about the distribution of problems within the document. Although some authors may choose to ignore the alerts completely, it is not recommended that authors be forced to fix problems as they occur. Instead, it is recommended that negotiated interruption be supplemented by scheduled interruptions at major editing events (e.g., when publishing), when the tool should alert the author to the outstanding accessibility problems.

Applicable to content-rendering authoring functions Example D-1: A WYSIWYG editing view makes the author of problems detected automatically by means of a blue line under text or around rendered objects with accessibility problems. Here, red lines are also visible, highlighting spelling errors in the text. The author can decide to address the problems at a later time. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(b) Scheduled Interruption: A scheduled interruption is one in which the author has set the tool to alert them of accessibility issues on a configurable schedule. One option for the schedule might be to have prompts associated with the interface mechanisms for significant authoring events, such as opening, saving, closing, committing, or publishing files. At the significant authoring event, the author would be informed of the problem, while at the same time they would not be prevented from saving, publishing, printing, etc. A potential downside of postponing corrective actions is that by the time the prompt is displayed, the author may not have sufficient time or inclination to make the required changes, especially if they are extensive.

Example D-2: A "Publish" dialog box allows the author to publish multiple files at once, however in the case shown here, two of the files have uncorrected accessibility errors which causes them not to meet a "standard of publishing" the author has set for themselves in the options. As a result the files are selected, a message is displayed ("The selected files do not meet your specified standard for publishing.") and the "publishing" button is grayed out. This standard is referred to generally since it is assumed that it might include spelling and grammar standards as well as accessibility issues. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

(c) Immediate Interruption: An immediate interruption is the most intrusive timing option because the attention of the author is actively diverted from the current editing task by the notification of some issue. This might be achieved, for instance, by an alert dialog. This type of alert presents multiple usability problems and should be used sparingly because it interferes with the normal design workflow. Intrusive warnings are probably only appropriate when the window of opportunity for correcting a serious accessibility problem is about to close, such as when an author decides to publish the content in question. In general, negotiated and scheduled interruptions are preferred.

Example D-3: A modal dialog box contains the message: "This image is missing alternate text". The author must press the "OK" button to continue. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
See the example caption above for description.

 

Appendix E: Real-Time Content Production

Dealing flexibly with real-time content production. When authoring tools produce content in real time, it is usually no longer possible to delay addressing accessibility problems until an arbitrary point in the future. At the same time, due to the time pressure, authors in real-time environments tend to be less receptive to intrusive prompts. Nevertheless, tools that allow this kind of authoring should still take accessibility issues into account by supporting the following:

(a) Determination of Participant Requirements: If real-time authoring is consumed by individuals with no special communicative needs, there may be no need for real-time prompting. However, as with any other Web content it is often impossible for the author to know all of the needs of the actual or potential participants. Therefore, the best practice is to create real-time content that conforms with WCAG to the greatest extent possible. However, when this is not possible, a real-time authoring tool might be able to facilitate graceful degradation of accessibility by polling the participants (see "Request whiteboard descriptions" checkbox in the figure) or in some cases checking the profiles of participants (e.g., using CCPP, ACCLIP) to determine which types of accessibility practices would offer the greatest advantage in the short time available. Once this information is compiled, the tool can prompt the author (or see Assistant/Peer Author) to correct problems appropriately (preferably during Preparation Time). When it is not possible to know, with certainty, the needs of all participants, the tool should still assume that accessible content is required. This is especially true if the results of the session will be archived.

(b) Assistant/Peer Author: In some cases, it may be possible to designate one or more secondary authors in the live community, who can receive and respond to prompts for supplemental information generated as the primary author proceeds uninterrupted. The secondary author might be an unrelated specialist, analogous to Sign language interpreter, a co-author (helpful for describing technical drawings, etc.), or in some situations any member of the session audience (i.e., a peer).

(c) Preparation Time: If the authoring tool allows the author time to pre-assemble materials for a live presentation (e.g., a professor preparing for an online class), this authoring is not considered real-time authoring. The authoring tool has the opportunity and the obligation to support accessible authoring as described elsewhere in this document.

(d) Archiving: If the session will be archived, there may be other opportunities to increase the accessibility of the content of the archive by guiding the author through a process to check for and repair accessibility problems after the real-time session has ended, but prior to archiving.

If it has been determined that the author must provide real-time supplements, but no preparation time or assistant author are available, then in addition to allowing the author control of the nature and timing of prompting, the authoring tool can facilitate the inclusion of supplements by:

Example E-1: A real-time presentation in a whiteboard/chat client environment that has been enhanced to provide real-time descriptions. The example has five panes. On the far left is a list of participants ("Presenter", "John (You)", "Jane", and "Alice"). In the upper-middle is the chat "Presenter> I suggest a space theme for the slide presentation.", "Image File Inserted (by Presenter) Description: An earthrise as seen from the surface of the moon.", "Presenter> The white text would go...", "Marker (by Presenter) Description> Draws a red box..., and "Presenter> in this area." Notice that descriptions are appearing here. The lower-middle is the message composition area for this user and is blank. The upper-right is the whiteboard. So far there is an image of "earthrise" and a red hand-drawn rectangle on the "canvas". The whiteboard tools are "select box", "text tool", "marker", "eraser", "insert image", "line tool", "rectangle tool", and an "ellipse tool". In the lower-right is an area for describing a drawing action - in this case the "Presenter' use of the Marker". Notice that any participant can describe the events on the whiteboard even as the dialog continues. (Source: mockup by AUWG).
See the example caption above for description.


Appendix AE: Glossary

This section is normative.

This section is included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].

abbreviation [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Shortened form of a word, phrase, or name where the abbreviation has not become part of the language. 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 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 meet a success criterion in Part A.
  2. Web content accessibility problem: An aspect of Web content that does not meet a WCAG success criterion.
accessibility information
Any information that is added to Web content for the purpose of conformance with WCAG (e.g., text alternatives for images, 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 edited (i.e., in meeting any of the success criteria in Principle B.2).
ASCII art [WCAG 2.0]
Picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).
assistive technology [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features. Examples of assistive technologies include, but are not limited to, 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;
  • speech recognition software, which may be used by people who have some physical disabilities;
  • alternative keyboards, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers, single switches, sip/puff and other special input devices);
  • alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations.
audio [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
AThe technology of sound reproduction. Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis), recorded from real world sounds, or both.
authoring action
Any action that authors can take using the authoring tool user interface that results in creating or 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, viewing documentation).
authoring outcome
The content or content modifications that result from authoring actions. Authoring outcomes are cumulative (e.g., text is entered, then styled, then made into a link, then given a title).
authoring practice
An approach that authors follow to achieve a given authoring outcome. (e.g., controlling presentation with style sheets). Depending on the design of an authoring tool, authoring practices may be chosen by the authors or by the tool. An accessible authoring practice is one in which the authoring outcome conforms to WCAG. Some accessible authoring practices require accessibility information.
authoring session
A state of the authoring tool in which content can be edited by an author. The end of an authoring session is the point at which the author has no further opportunity to make changes without starting another session. The end of an authoring session may be determined by authors (e.g., closing a document, publishing) or by the authoring tool (e.g., when the authoring tool transfers editing permission to another author on a collaborative system). Note that the end of the authoring session is distinct from publishing. Automated content generation may continue after the end of both the authoring session and initial publishing (e.g., CMS updates).
authoring tool user interface (non-Web-Based)
Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are not implemented as Web content and instead run directly on a platform that is not a user agent, such as Windows, MacOS, Java Virtual Machine, etc.
authoring tool user interface (Web-based)
Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are implemented using Web content technologies and are accessed by authors via a user agent.
authoring tool user interface
The display and control mechanism that authors use to operate the authoring tool software. User interfaces may be non-Web-based or Web-based or a combination (e.g., a non-Web-based authoring tool might have Web-based help pages). User interfaces include content independent functions and content dependent functions. An accessible authoring tool user interface is one that meets the success criteria of a level in Part A.
authoring tool
Any software, or collection of software components, that authors can use to create or modify Web content for use by other people. For more information, see the "Scope and Applicability" section.
author permission
Whether a person has a right to modify given Web content. In other words, whether they qualify as an author of the content. Some authoring tools are capable of managing authoring permissions in order to prevent unauthorized modifications.
authors
Any person using an authoring tool to create or modify Web content for use by other people. This may include content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. working either alone or collaboratively. A person only qualifies as an author of given Web content if (1) the authoring tool supports the relevant Web content technology used to implement the content and (2) the person has author permission for that particular Web content.
 
 
checking (accessibility) [harmonized with 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 being edited
The Web content that is currently being modified by the authoring tool for use by other people.
content generation
ATAG 2.0 refers to two types 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) as programmed by the developer.
content (Web content) [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the end user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions. In ATAG 2.0, "content" is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool. “Content” may include Web applications, including those that act as Web-based authoring tools. Accessible Web content is Web content that conforms to a particular level of WCAG.
content rendering
User interface functionality that authoring tools present if they render, play or execute the Web content being edited. In this document the term covers conventional renderings (e.g., What-you-see-is what-you-get "WYSIWYG" interfaces), unconventional renderings (e.g., rendering an audio file as a graphical wavefront) and partial renderings, in which some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or executed, but not others (e.g., a frame-by-frame video editor renders the graphical, but not the timing aspects, of a video).
conversion
A process that takes as input, content in one Web content technology or non-Web content technology (e.g. word processing format) and produces as output, content in a different Web content technology (e.g., "Save as HTML" functions).
developer
Any entities or individuals responsible for programming the authoring tool. This includes the programmers of any additional software components included by the Claimant in the conformance claim. In some cases, development of the authoring tool is complete before the author uses it. However in other cases (e.g., some Web-based authoring tools), the developer may continue to modify the authoring tool after content is published by the author such that the Web content experienced by the end user is modified.
direct accessibility features
Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities (e.g., keyboard navigation, zoom functions, text-to-speech). Additional or specialized functionality may still be provided by external assistive technology.
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. Examples include volume, speech voices, voice speed, and voice emphasis.
  2. display settings (visual): the characteristics of the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. Examples include fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.
documentation
Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, sample work flows, tutorials, etc.
document object
The internal representation of data in the source content by a non-Web based authoring tool or user agent. The document object may form part of a platform accessibility architecture that enables communication with assistive technologies. Web-based authoring tools are considered to make use of the document object that is maintained by the user agent.
element
A pair of markup tags and its content, or an "empty tag" (one that requires no closing tag or content).
end user
A person who interacts with Web content once it has been authored. This includes people using assistive technologies.
alternative content
Content that is used in place of other content that a person may not be able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. Examples include text alternatives for non-text content, captions for audio, audio descriptions for video, sign language for audio, media alternatives for time-based media. See WCAG for more information.
 
 
 
human language [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means ) to communicate with humans.
 
informative [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
For information purposes and not required for conformance.
label [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to users to identify a component. A label is presented to all users whereas the name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. In many (but not all) cases the name and the label are the same.
 
markup language
A system of text annotations (e.g., elements in HTML) and processing rules that may be used to specify the structure, presentation or semantics of content. Examples of markup languages include HTML and SVG. The markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content.
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 recognized or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters), emoticons, and images representing text.
normative [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.
option
When an author is presented with choices. An option may be local (e.g., prompting whether to save before ending an authoring session) or global (e.g., preference settings).
platform
The software environment within which the authoring tool operates. In the case of Web-based authoring user interfaces, this will be user agents. In the case of non-Web-based user interfaces this will be operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS, Linux), virtual machines (e.g., JVM), etc. Information is available via the platform (to assistive technologies) when it is communicated programmatically by the authoring tool to the platform, which then facilitates onward programmatic communication to assistive technologies. For non-Web-based user interfaces, this means via an implemented platform accessibility architecture. For Web-based user interfaces, this means following WCAG so that the user agent can pass on the information.
platform accessibility architecture
A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e.g. MSAA and UI Automation for Windows applications, AXAPI for MacOSX applications, Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome applications, Java Access for Java applications, etc.). On some platforms, it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object.
plug-in [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 to be perceived by authors.
prominence
A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (e.g., single controls, groups of controls, text messages) in a user interface that they are operating. Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual properties (e.g., size, spacing, color), and even the modality of use (e.g., mouse vs. keyboard use). For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be at least as prominent as item B if:
  1. both items occur in the same item container (e.g., a menu for menu items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes),
  2. if item B is emphasized, then so is item A, and
  3. item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows item B.
prompt
Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors. Well designed prompting will urge, suggest, and encourage authors.
publishing
The point at which the authors or the authoring tool make content available to end users (e.g., uploading a Web page, committing a change in a wiki).
recognized (by the tool)
When an authoring tool is able to process encoded information, such as labels, names, roles or relationships, with certainty. For example, an authoring tool would only be able to recognize a particular text string as a text label for a non-text object, if this relationship was appropriately encoded (e.g., in an "alt" attribute, by a "labeledby" property). If success criteria apply to recognized types of content (e.g., tool-recognized alternative content), the conformance claim must list the recognized types.
relationships [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content.
repairing (accessibility) [harmonized with 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.
role [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Text or a number by which software can identify the function of a component within Web content (e.g., a string that indicates whether an image functions as a hyperlink, command button, or check box).
structured element set
Content that consists of organized elements (e.g., lists, maps, hierarchies, graphs).
technology (Web content) [harmonized with WCAG 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. An accessible technology is a technology that may be used in a way that is "accessibility supported" (For more information on "accessibility supported", see WCAG 2.0).
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 provides step-by-step instructions for performing multi-part tasks.
user agent [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
Any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with Web content. Examples include Web browsers, browser plug-ins, and media players.
user interface component [adapted from WCAG 2.0]
A part of the user interface or content display (including renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a distinct function.
video [WCAG 2.0]
The technology of moving pictures or images. Video can be made up of animated or photographic images, or both.
view
A user interface function that authors use to interact with the content being edited. ATAG 2.0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing and the way in which they present content. There are two options for supporting editing in a view:
  1. editing views are editable.
  2. previews are not editable and present content as it would appear in a user agent.
There are three approaches to presenting the content in a view:
  1. as source content in which the unrendered content is presented (e.g., plain text editors),
  2. as content rendering, and
  3. as pre-built content in which authors set only high-level options that the authoring tool then interprets to generate the resulting content (e.g., a calendar module in a content management system).
workflow
A customary sequence of steps or tasks authors follow to produce a content deliverable. If an authoring tool is composed of multiple software components then its workflows may include use of one or more of the components.

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

This section is informative.

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

  1. References to a specific version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0." For example, use the "this version" URI to refer to the current document:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ATAG20-20090105/
  2. References to the latest version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0." Use the "latest version" URI to refer to the most recently published document in the series:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.

In almost all cases, references (either by name or by link) should be to a specific version of the document. W3C will make every effort to make this document indefinitely available at its original address in its original form. The top of this document includes the relevant catalog metadata for specific references (including title, publication date, "this version" URI, editors' names, and copyright information).

An XHTML 1.0 paragraph including a reference to this specific document might be written:

<p>
<cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ATAG20-20090105/">
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0,"</a></cite>
J. Richards, J. Spellman, eds.,
W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.
The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/">latest version</a> of this document is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.</p>

For very general references to this document (where stability of content and anchors is not required), it may be appropriate to refer to the latest version of this document. Other sections of this document explain how to build a conformance claim.


Appendix CE: 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 "[WCAG20]" link to the corresponding entries in this section. These labels are also identified as references through markup.

[ACCESSFORALL]
"IMS AccessForAll Meta-data Overview", IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
[AERT]
"Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation And Repair Tools", C. Ridpath, W. Chisholm, eds., 26 April 2000. This W3C Working Draft is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-AERT-20000426.
[APPLE-ACCESS]
"Introduction to Accessibility Overview," Apple Computer Inc.
[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/.
[ATAG10-TECHS]
"Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, J. Richards, and G. Rosmaita, eds., 29 October 2002. This W3C reference is http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-ATAG10-TECHS-20021029/.
[ATAG20]
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0," J. Treviranus, J. Richards, C. McCathieNevile, and M. May, eds. The latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20. The latest version of ATAG 2.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20.
[CARBON-ACCESS]
"Introduction to Accessibility Programming Guidelines for Carbon," Apple Corporation.
[COCOA-ACCESS]
"Introduction to Accessibility Programming Guidelines for Cocoa," Apple Corporation.
[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.
[DOM]
"Document Object Model (DOM) Level 2 Core Specification," A. Le Hors, P. Le Hégaret, L. Wood, G. Nicol, J. Robie, M. Champion, S. Byrne, eds., 13 November 2000. This W3C Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/.
[EARL]
"EARL - the Evaluation And Report Language," W3C-WAI Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group.
[ECLIPSE-ACCESS]
"Designing Accessible Plug-ins in Eclipse," T. Creasy, IBM OTI Labs.
[ECLIPSE-API]
"Eclipse Platform API"
[EDU-SOFT-ACCESS]
"Making Educational Software and Web Sites Accessible,". G. Freed, M. Rothberg and T. Wlodkowski, National Center for Accessible Media
[EITAAC]
"EITAAC Desktop Software standards," Electronic Information Technology Access Advisory (EITAAC) Committee.
[GNOME-ACCESS]
"GNOME Accessibility for Developers," C. Benson, B. Cameron, B. Haneman, S. Snider, P. O'Briain, The GNOME Accessibility Project.
[GNOME-API]
"Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API"
[GNOME-KDE-KEYS]
"Gnome/KDE Keyboard Shortcuts," Novell Corporation.
[HTML4-ACCESS]
"WAI Resources: HTML 4.0 Accessibility Improvements," I. Jacobs, J. Brewer, and D. Dardailler, eds. This document describes accessibility features in HTML 4.0.
[IBM-ACCESS]
"Software Accessibility," IBM Special Needs Systems.
[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.
[ISO-TS-16071]
"Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces". International Organization for Standardization.
[JAVA-ACCESS]
"IBM Guidelines for Writing Accessible Applications Using 100% Pure Java," R. Schwerdtfeger, IBM Special Needs Systems.
[JAVA-API]
" Java Accessibility Package"
[JAVA-CHECKLIST]
"Java Accessibility Guidelines and Checklist," IBM Special Needs Systems.
[MACOSX-KEYS]
"Mac OS X keyboard shortcuts," Apple Corporation.
[MS-ENABLE]
"Accessibility for Applications Designers," Microsoft Corporation.
[MS-KEYS]
"Keyboard shortcuts for Windows," Microsoft Corporation.
[MSAA-API]
"Microsoft Active Accessibility," Microsoft Corporation.
[NOTES-ACCESS]
"Lotus Notes application accessibility," IBM Corporation.
[RDF10]
"Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification," O. Lassila, R. Swick, eds. The 22 February 1999 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. The latest version of RDF 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax.
[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.
[SUN-DESIGN]
"Designing for Accessibility," Eric Bergman and Earl Johnson. This paper discusses specific disabilities including those related to hearing, vision, and cognitive function.
[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.
[TRACE-REF]
"Application Software Design Guidelines," compiled by G. Vanderheiden. A thorough reference work.
[UAAG]
"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, E. Hansen, eds.17 December 2002. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/.
[USER-TEST-UCD]
"Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design," S. L. Henry. An on-line book.
[USER-TEST-WEB]
"Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation," S. L. Henry, ed. W3C
[WCAG10]
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds., 5 May 1999. This WCAG 1.0 Recommendation is available at 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 ", B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, and G. Vanderheiden.
[WCAG20-TECHS]
"Techniques for WCAG 2.0," B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, G. Vanderheiden, eds.
[WCAG20-UNDERSTANDING]
"Understanding (WCAG 2.0)," B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, G. Vanderheiden, eds.
[WHAT-IS]
"What is Accessible Software," James W. Thatcher, Ph.D., IBM, 1997. This paper, available at the IBM Accessibility Center, gives a short example-based introduction to the difference between software that is accessible, and software that can be used by some assistive technologies.
[XAG]
"XML Accessibility Guidelines", D. Dardailler, S. B. Palmer, C. McCathieNevile, eds. 3 October 2002. This is a Working Group Draft.

Appendix DF: Acknowledgments

Appendix Editors:

Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:

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

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

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

This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) under contract number 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.


Appendix E: Checklist


Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0


Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0


[Contents] [Techniques] [Checklist]

[Contents] [Guidelines]