List of Checkpoints for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

Abstract

This document is an appendix to the W3C "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0". It provides a list of all checkpoints from the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, organized by priority, as a checklist for authoring tool developers. Please refer to the Guidelines document for introductory information, information about related documents, a glossary of terms, and further information. This document is not a substitute for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.

A tabular version of the list of checkpoints is also available (e.g., for printing).

Status of this document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status of this document series is maintained at the W3C.

This document is an appendix to a Proposed Recommendation It is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Proposed Recommendations as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". This is work in progress and does not imply endorsement by, or the consensus of, either W3C or Members of the WAI Authoring Tool Working Group.

Please send comments about this document to the public mailing list: w3c-wai-au@w3.org.

This document has been produced as part of the Web Accessibility Initiative. The goal of the WAI Authoring Tool Guidelines Working Group is discussed in the Working Group charter.

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.

Checkpoint Priorities

Each checkpoint has a priority level. The priority level reflects the impact of the checkpoint in meeting the goals of this specification. These goals are:

• That the authoring tool be accessible
• That the authoring tool generate accessible content by default
• That the authoring tool encourage the creation of accessible content

The three priority levels are assigned as follows:

[Priority 1]

If the checkpoint is essential to meeting the goals

[Priority 2]

If the checkpoint is important to meeting the goals

[Priority 3]

If the checkpoint is beneficial to meeting the goals

[Relative Priority]

Some checkpoints that refer to generating, authoring, or checking Web content have multiple priorities. The priority is dependent on the priority in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT].

• It is priority 1 to implement the checkpoint for content features that are a priority 1 requirement in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT].
• It is priority 2 to implement the checkpoint for content features that are a priority 2 requirement in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT].
• It is priority 3 to implement the checkpoint for content features that are a priority 3 requirement in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT].

For example:

• providing text equivalents for images and audio is a priority 1 requirement in WCAG [WAI-WEBCONTENT] since without it one or more groups will find it impossible to access the information. Therefore, it is a priority 1 requirement for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the author for (3.1) equivalent alternatives for these types of content.
• Grouping links in navigation bars is a priority 3 in WCAG [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. Therefore, it is only priority 3 for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the author for (3.2) groups of links that are not grouped in the markup as a navigation mechanism.

The implementation of the checkpoints will vary from tool to tool. When a checkpoint within this document refers to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, only the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines checkpoints that refer to content supported or generated by the authoring tool apply, as noted in the relevant checkpoints. In some cases support can be provided automatically, without the need for explicit author participation, in other cases human judgment is required and support is provided by the tool in the form of prompts and documentation.

In choosing priority levels for checkpoints, the Working Group has assumed that "the author" is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of the authoring tool, and that the author has no prior knowledge of accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to have read all of the documentation but is expected to know how to turn to the documentation for assistance.

Priority 1 checkpoints

• Checkpoint 1.1 Ensure that the author can produce accessible content in the markup language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 1.1)
• Checkpoint 1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all accessibility information during authoring, transformations and conversions. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 1.2)
• Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that the tool generates valid markup. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 2.2)
• Checkpoint 3.4 Do not insert automatically generated or place-holder equivalent alternatives. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 3.4)
• Checkpoint 6.1 Document all features that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 6.1)
• Checkpoint 7.2 Allow the author to change the presentation within editing views without affecting the document markup. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 7.2)
• Checkpoint 7.3 Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 7.3)
• Checkpoint 7.4 Ensure the editing view allows navigation via the structure of the document in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1] (Techniques for 7.4)

Relative Priority checkpoints

Note: These should be assessed by reference to the checkpoints of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT], and may be met at three different levels.

• Checkpoint 1.3 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. [Relative Priority] (Techniques for 1.3)
• Checkpoint 1.4 Ensure that templates provided by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. [Relative Priority] (Techniques for 1.4)
• Checkpoint 3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions and collated text transcripts for video). [Relative Priority] (Techniques for 3.1)
• Checkpoint 3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority] (Techniques for 3.2)
• Checkpoint 3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. [Relative Priority] (Techniques for 3.3)
• Checkpoint 4.1 Check for and alert the author to accessibility problems. [Relative Priority] (Techniques for 4.1)
• Checkpoint 4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. [Relative Priority] (Techniques for 4.2)
• Checkpoint 7.1 Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and conventions (Priority 1 for standards and conventions that are essential to accessibility, Priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility, Priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility). (Techniques for 7.1)

Priority 2 checkpoints

• Checkpoint 2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are available and appropriate for a task. [Priority 2] (Techniques for 2.1)
• Checkpoint 4.3 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool. [Priority 2] (Techniques for 4.3)
• Checkpoint 5.1 Ensure that functions related to accessible authoring practices are naturally integrated into the tool. [Priority 2] (Techniques for 5.1)
• Checkpoint 5.2 Ensure that Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT] Priority 1 accessible authoring practices are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author. [Priority 2] (Techniques for 5.2)
• Checkpoint 6.2 Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including examples. [Priority 2] (Techniques for 6.2)
• Checkpoint 7.5 Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessible fashion. [Priority 2] (Techniques for 7.5)
• Checkpoint 7.6 Allow the author to search within editing views. [Priority 2] (Techniques for 7.6)

Priority 3 checkpoints

• Checkpoint 2.3 If markup generated by the tool does not conform to W3C specifications, inform the author. [Priority 3] (Techniques for 2.3)
• Checkpoint 3.5 Provide a mechanism to manage alternative information for multimedia objects, that retains and offers for editing pre-written or previously linked equivalent alternative information. [Priority 3] (Techniques for 3.5)
• Checkpoint 4.4 Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status. [Priority 3] (Techniques for 4.4)
• Checkpoint 4.5 Allow the author to transform presentation markup that is misused to convey structure into structural markup, and to transform presentation markup that is stylistic into style sheets. [Priority 3] (Techniques for 4.5)
• Checkpoint 6.3 In a dedicated section, document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 3] (Techniques for 6.3)

References

For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports.

[WAI-WEBCONTENT]

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