[Contents] [Techniques]

W3C

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

W3C Editor's Draft 06 May 2009

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2009/ED-ATAG20-20090506/
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)

Copyright © 2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.

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.

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May be Superseded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/.

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 authoring tool 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) may 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 authoring tool 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:

Definition of authoring tool

This section is normative.

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.

Notes on the Definition:

  1. ATAG 2.0 applies to a wide variety of Web content generating applications, including, but not limited to:
    • "conventional" webpage authoring tools (e.g., WYSIWYG HTML editors)
    • software for directly editing source code (e.g., text editors)
    • software for converting to Web content technologies (e.g., "Save as HTML" features in office suites)
    • integrated development environments (e.g., for Web Application development)
    • software that generates Web content on the basis of templates, scripts, command-line input or wizard processes
    • software for rapidly updating portions of webpages (e.g., blogging, wikis, online forums)
    • software for generating/managing entire sites (e.g., content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators)
    • email clients that send messages in Web content technologies
    • multimedia authoring tools
  2. Any guidelines that require authors to modify content in some way always assumes that the person has author permission.
  3. Live content authoring tools (e.g., a collaborative tool that archives the conversation as Web content) 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 varying 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 varying 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 varying 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 facilitate awareness and proper use of features that support accessible authoring practices, with a goal of incorporating accessibility into 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. 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.

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:

ATAG 2.0 Guidelines

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

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 authoring tool 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 authoring tool 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]

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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]

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)

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]

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)

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.

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)

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)

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]

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.

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]

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)

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)

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]

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]

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)

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.

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

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).

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]

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):

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):

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

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

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].

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]

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)

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

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

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]

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)

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]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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)

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)

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]

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.

B.2.1.1 Guide Accessible (Level A): If the authoring tool automatically prompts authors for any information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image modification dialog), then automatic prompts are also included for any accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level A (Level A).

B.2.1.3 Guide Accessible (Level AA):If the authoring tool automatically prompts authors for any information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image modification dialog), then automatic prompts are also included for any accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level AA (Level AA).

B.2.1.5 Guide Accessible (Level AAA):If the authoring tool automatically prompts authors for any information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image modification dialog), then automatic prompts are also included for any accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level AAA (Level AAA).

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

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.

See also: For more information, see ATAG 2.0 Techniques - Appendix A: Levels of Checking Automation.

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)

B.2.2.2 Availability: Checking is available prior to publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool. (Level A)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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]

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.

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)

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)

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)

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]

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)

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)

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).

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):

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]

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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]

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.

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

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]

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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 authoring tool 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: Glossary

This section is normative.

This appendix contains definitions for all of the significant/important/unfamiliar terms used in the normative parts of this specification, including terms used in the Conformance section. Except where indicated by "[ ]", the source of these definitions is the AUWG, developed with a goal of clarity, detail, understanding, and completeness. Every attempt has been made to find appropriate definitions for these terms from other sources before such development by the AUWG. All these terms are linked at least from their first usage in the specification. Terms that have designations of "[ ]" beside them are taken from the indicated W3C specifications. Where a definition so referenced is not suitable or adequate for the ATAG2.0, it may be modified as described herein. Please consult http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ for more information on the role of definitions in specification quality.

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).
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.
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]
The 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. See "Definition of authoring tool" section in Introduction.
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 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.
 
 
 
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/2009/WD-ATAG20-20090217/
  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 C: References

This section is informative.

For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR/. Some documents listed below may have been superseded since the publication of this document.

Note: In this document, bracketed labels such as "[WCAG20]" link to the corresponding entries in this section. These labels are also identified as references through markup.

[ATAG10]
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/.
[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.
[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.
[SMIL-ACCESS]
"Accessibility Features of SMIL," M.-R. Koivunen and I. Jacobs, eds., 21 September 1999. This W3C Note is available at available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL-access.
[sRGB]
"A Standard Default Color Space for the Internet - sRGB," M. Stokes, M. Anderson, S. Chandrasekar, R. Motta, eds., Version 1.10, November 5, 1996. A copy of this paper is available at http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB.html.
[SVG-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.
[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/.
[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.
[XAG]
"XML Accessibility Guidelines", D. Dardailler, S. B. Palmer, C. McCathieNevile, eds. 3 October 2002. This is a Working Group Draft.

Appendix D: 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]