Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
W3C Proposed Recommendation 10 December 1999
- This version:
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210
- (plain text,
HTML gzip tar archive, HTML zip archive,
PostScript,
PDF)
- Latest version:
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS
- Previous version:
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991208
- Editors:
- Jutta Treviranus -
ATRC, University of Toronto
- Jan Richards - University of Toronto
- Ian Jacobs - W3C
- Charles McCathieNevile - W3C
Copyright ©
1999
W3C® (MIT, INRIA, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability,
trademark, document use and
software
licensing rules apply.
This specification provides guidelines for Web authoring tool developers.
Its purpose is two-fold: to assist developers in designing authoring tools that
generate accessible Web content and to assist developers in creating an
accessible authoring interface.
Authoring tool users ("authors") can be enabled, encouraged and assisted to
create accessible Web content through prompts, alerts, checking and repair
functions, help files and automated tools. It is equally important that all
people can be the authors of Web content, rather than merely recipients. The
tools used to create this information must therefore be accessible themselves.
Adoption of these guidelines will contribute to the proliferation of Web
content that can be read by a broader range of readers and in authoring tools
that can be used by a broader range of authors.
This document is part of a series of accessibility documents published by
the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
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 a revision of the Authoring Tool Guidelines
Proposed Recommendation dated 26 October 1999, reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties. The current
document, for Working Group review, follows the Working Group meeting on 8 December
1999 and reflects the resolutions of Working Group meetings discussing
issues raised during the Proposed Recommendation period. A log of changes between successive
Working Drafts is available. For further information consult the minutes of Working Group Meetings.
The Working Group anticipates no changes to this specification that would
affect implementation, and encourages active implementation to test the
specification during the Proposed Recommendation review period.
Publication as a Proposed Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the
W3C Membership. This is
still a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite W3C Proposed Recommendations as other than "work in
progress."
The goals of the WAI AU Working
Group are discussed in the WAI AU charter.
Please send general comments about this document to the public mailing list:
w3c-wai-au@w3.org, archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au
A list of the current AU Working
Group participants is available.
A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be
found at http://www.w3.org/TR.
The guidelines in this specification are designed to help authoring tool
developers design authoring tools that can be used by people regardless of
disability, and that produce accessible Web content. In these guidelines, the
term authoring tool refers to the wide range of software used for creating Web
content, including:
- Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content (e.g., WYSIWYG
HTML and XML editors);
- Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web format (e.g., word
processors or desktop publishing packages);
- Tools that translate documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to translate
desktop publishing formats to HTML);
- Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is intended for use on
the Web (e.g., video production and editing suites, SMIL authoring
packages);
- Tools for site management or site publication, including tools that
generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-fly conversion and Web
site publishing tools;
- Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).
There are tools (such as text editors) that allow motivated users to create
accessible Web content, or are accessible themselves to users with certain
disabilities, but that may not conform to this specification. The purpose of
this specification is to address the needs of the largest population possible,
so that there is more accessible content on the Web. The goals of this document
can be stated as follows: that the authoring tool be accessible to authors
regardless of disability, that it generate accessible content by default, and
that it support and encourage the author in creating accessible content.
Because most of the content of the Web is created using authoring tools, they
play a critical role in ensuring the
accessibility of the Web. Since the Web is both a means of receiving
information and communicating information, it is important that both the Web
content produced and the authoring tool itself be accessible.
This document provides guidelines for designing authoring tools that
generate Web content which is accessible and that support and encourage authors
to create such content. This is achieved by taking steps such as ensuring
conformance to accessible standards (e.g., HTML 4.0), accessibility checking
and correcting, prompting, appropriate documentation and help. For detailed
information about what constitutes accessible content this specification relies
on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. Similarly,
rather than directly reproduce existing specifications that address general
accessible software design the present specification relies on other sources.
It does address accessible design considerations specific to Web authoring
tools such as providing flexible editing views, navigation aids and access to
display properties for authors.
In addition, accessible design will benefit many people who do not have a
physical disability but with similar needs. For example they may be working in
a noisy environment and unable to hear, or need to use their eyes for another
task, and be unable to view a screen. They may be using a small mobile device,
with a small screen, no keyboard and no mouse.
A separate document, entitled "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility"
[WAI-AUTOOLS-TECHS], provides suggestions and examples of how each
checkpoint might be satisfied. It also includes references to other
accessibility resources (such as platform-specific software accessibility
guidelines) that provide additional information on how a tool may satisfy each
checkpoint. Readers are strongly encouraged to become familiar with the
techniques document. Note that the Techniques provided are informative examples
only, and other strategies may be used to meet the checkpoint as well as, or in
place of, those discussed.
This document includes guidelines, which are general principles of
accessible design. Each guideline includes:
- The guideline number;
- The statement of the guideline;
- The rationale behind the guideline;
- A list of checkpoint definitions.
The checkpoint definitions in each guideline specify requirements for
authoring tools to follow the guideline. Each checkpoint definition
includes:
- The checkpoint number;
- The statement of the checkpoint;
- The priority of the checkpoint;
- In some cases informative notes, clarifying examples, or cross references
to related guidelines or checkpoints;
- A link to a section of [WAI-AUTOOLS-TECHS] where implementations and
examples of the checkpoint are discussed;
Each checkpoint is intended to be specific enough that it can be verified,
while being sufficiently general to allow developers the freedom to use the
most appropriate strategies to meet the checkpoint.
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.
This section defines three levels of conformance to this document:
- Conformance Level "A": all Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied;
- Conformance Level "Double-A": all Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are
satisfied;
- Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are
satisfied;
Note. Some example conformance evaluations are available.
It should be noted that conformance claims are not necessarily validated or
endorsed by W3C.
Claims of conformance to this document must use one of the following two
forms.
Form 1: Specify:
- The guidelines' title: "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"
- The guidelines' URI: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210
- The conformance level satisfied: "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A".
- The product covered by the claim (e.g., tool name and version number,
upgrades or plug-ins required).
- The date of the claim.
- The checkpoints that are satisfied, and those that are considered not
applicable
Example of Form 1: "MyAuthoringTool version 2.3 conforms to W3C's "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210, level Double-A."
Form 2: Include, on each statement of conformance, one of three icons
provided by W3C and link the icon to the appropriate W3C
explanation of the claim.
[Editors' note: In the event this document becomes a Recommendation, by that
date WAI will provide a set of three icons, for "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A"
conformance levels of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", together with a stable URI to the W3C Web site for linking the icons
to the W3C explanation of
conformance claims.]
If the tool automatically generates markup, many authors will be unaware of
the accessibility status of the final content unless they expend extra effort
to make appropriate corrections by hand. Since many authors are unfamiliar with
accessibility, the onus is on the authoring tool to generate accessible markup,
and where appropriate, to guide the author in producing accessible content.
Many applications feature the ability to convert
documents from other formats (e.g., Rich Text Format) into a markup
format specifically intended for the Web such as HTML. Markup changes may also
be made to facilitate efficient editing and manipulation. It is essential that
these processes do not introduce inaccessible markup, or remove accessibility content,
particularly since the markup changes are hidden from the author's view in many
tools.
Checkpoints:
- 1.1 Ensure that the author can
produce accessible content in
the markup language(s)
supported by the tool. [Priority 1]
-
- 1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all
accessibility information
during authoring,
transformations and
conversions. [Priority 1]
-
- 1.3 Ensure that when the tool
automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
[WAI-WEBCONTENT].
[Relative Priority]
-
- 1.4 Ensure that templates provided
by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
[WAI-WEBCONTENT].
[Relative Priority]
-
Conformance with standards promotes interoperability and accessibility, by
making it easier to create specialized user
agents that address the needs of users with disabilities. In
particular many assistive technologies used with browsers and multimedia
players are only able to provide access to Web
documents that use valid markup. Therefore, valid markup is an
essential aspect of authoring tool accessibility.
Where applicable use W3C
Recommendations, which have been reviewed to ensure accessibility and
interoperability. If there are no applicable W3C Recommendations, use a published standard that enables
accessibility.
Checkpoints:
-
2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are available and appropriate
for a task. [Priority 2]
- W3C specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that they
do not compromise accessibility, and where possible they enhance it.
-
- 2.2 Ensure that the tool generates
valid markup. [Priority 1]
- This is necessary for user agents to
be able to render Web content in a manner appropriate to a particular user's
needs.
-
- 2.3 If markup generated by the tool
does not conform to W3C specifications, inform the author. [Priority 3]
-
Well structured information, and equivalent
alternative information are cornerstones of accessible design,
allowing information to be presented in a way most appropriate for the needs of
the user without constraining the creativity of the author. Yet generating
equivalent information, such as textual alternatives for images and auditory
descriptions of video, can be one of the most challenging aspects of Web
design, and authoring tool developers should attempt to facilitate and automate
the mechanics of this process. For example, prompting authors to include
equivalent alternative information such as text
equivalents, captions, and
auditory descriptions at appropriate
times can greatly ease the burden for authors. Where such information can be
mechanically determined and offered as a choice for the author (e.g., the
function of icons in an automatically-generated navigation bar, or expansion of
acronyms from a dictionary) the tool can assist the author. At the same time it
can reinforce the need for such information and the author's role in ensuring
that it is used appropriately in each instance.
Checkpoints:
- 3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g.,
captions, auditory descriptions and collated text transcripts for video).
[Relative Priority]
- Note. Some Checkpoints in Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT] may not be applicable.
-
- 3.2 Help the author create structured
content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]
- Note: Some Checkpoints in Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT] may not be applicable.
-
- 3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content
conforms to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. [Relative Priority]
- For example include synchronized text and audio equivalents (such as captions, auditory description and a collated
text transcript) with movies.
Refer also to checkpoint 3.4.
-
-
3.4 Do not insert automatically generated or place-holder equivalent alternatives. [Priority 1]
- For example, "search" may be appropriate alternative
text for a graphic button linked to a search function, but the filename of an
image should not be inserted as a default.
Note. Human-authored equivalent alternatives may be
available for an object (for example through checkpoint 3.5 and/or checkpoint 3.3). It is appropriate for the tool to offer
these to the author as defaults.
-
- 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]
-
Many authoring tools allow authors to create documents with little or no
knowledge about the underlying markup. To ensure accessibility, authoring tools
must be designed so that they can (where possible automatically) identify inaccessible markup,
and enable its correction even when the markup itself is hidden from the
author.
In supporting the creation of accessible Web content, authoring tools should
take into account differing authoring styles. In general, authors will prefer
to be able to configure their tools to support their working style. Tools that
allow such configuration can help authors to feel that accessible authoring is
a natural practice (refer to guideline 5) rather than an
intrusion on their normal work pattern. For example some users may prefer to be
alerted to accessibility
problems when they occur, whereas others may prefer to perform a
check at the end of an editing session. This is analogous to programming
environments that allow users to decide whether to check for correct code
during editing or at compile time.
Note. Validation of markup is an essential aspect of
checking the accessibility of content.
Checkpoints:
- 4.1 Check for and alert the author to accessibility problems.
[Relative Priority]
- Note: Accessibility problems should be
detected automatically where possible. Where this is not possible, the tool may
need to prompt the user to make decisions, or to manually check for certain
types of problem.
-
- 4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility
problems. [Relative Priority]
- At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the
accessibility checking required by 4.1
-
-
4.3 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool.
[Priority 2]
- Note. The author may have included or
imported markup that enhances accessibility but is not recognized by the
tool.
-
- 4.4 Provide the author with a summary of
the document's accessibility status.
[Priority 3]
-
- 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]
-
When a new feature is added to an existing software tool without proper
integration, the result is often an obvious discontinuity. Differing color
schemes, fonts, interaction styles and even application stability can be
factors affecting user acceptance of the new feature. In addition, the relative
prominence of different ways to achieve the same thing can be an important
factor in which method an author chooses. Therefore, it is important that
creating accessible content is a natural process when using an authoring
tool.
Checkpoints:
- 5.1 Ensure that functions related to accessible authoring
practices are naturally integrated into the tool.
[Priority 2]
-
-
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]
-
The issues surrounding the creation of accessible Web content are often
unknown to Web authors. Help and documentation must include explanations of accessibility
problems, and should demonstrate solutions with examples.
Checkpoints:
- 6.1 Document all features that promote the
production of accessible content.
[Priority 1]
-
- 6.2 Ensure that creating accessible
content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including
examples. [Priority 2]
-
- 6.3 In a dedicated section,
document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessible
content. [Priority 3]
-
The authoring tool is a software program with standard user interface
elements and as such must be designed according to relevant user interface
accessibility guidelines. When custom interface components are created it is
essential that they are accessible through standard access mechanisms.
Some additional user interface design considerations apply specifically to
Web authoring tools. For instance,
authoring tools must ensure that the author can edit (in the editing view) using one set of stylistic preferences
and publish using different styles. For instance, authors with low vision may
need large text when editing but want to publish with a smaller default text
size. The style preferences of the editing view must not affect the markup of
the published document.
Authoring tools must also ensure that the author can navigate a document
efficiently while editing, regardless of disability. Authors who use screen
readers, refreshable braille displays, or screen magnifiers can make limited
use (if at all) of graphical artifacts that communicate the structure of the
document and act as signposts when traversing it. For authors with blindness or
motor impairments, fatigue and other problems that arise when serial access is
the only navigation technique are major usability issues. Authoring tools
should therefore provide an editing view
that conveys a sense of the overall structure and allows structured
navigation.
Note. Documentation, help files, and installation are part
of the software and need to be available in an
accessible form.
Checkpoints:
- 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).
- The techniques for this checkpoint include references to checklists and
guidelines for a number of platforms and to general guidelines for accessible applications.
-
- 7.2 Allow the author to change the
presentation within editing views
without affecting the document markup.
[Priority 1]
- This allows the author to edit the document according to personal
requirements, without changing the way the document is rendered when
published.
-
-
7.3 Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible
fashion. [Priority 1]
-
- 7.4 Ensure the editing view allows navigation via the
structure of the document in an accessible fashion.
[Priority 1]
-
-
7.5 Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessible
fashion. [Priority 2]
-
-
7.6 Allow the author to search within editing views.
[Priority 2]
-
- Accessibility (Also: Accessible)
- Within these guidelines, "accessible Web content" and "accessible authoring
tool" mean that the content and tool can be used by people regardless of
disability.
- To understand the accessibility issues relevant to authoring tool design,
consider that many users may be creating content in contexts very different
from your own:
- They may not be able to see, hear, move, or may not be able to process some
types of information easily or at all;
- They may have difficulty reading or comprehending text;
- They may not have or be able to use a keyboard or mouse;
- They may have a text-only display, or a small screen.
- Accessible design will benefit people in these different authoring
scenarios and also many people who do not have a physical disability but who
have similar needs. For example, someone may be working in a noisy environment
and thus require an alternative representation of audio information. Similarly,
someone may be working in an eyes-busy environment and thus require an audio
equivalent to information they cannot view. Users of small mobile devices (with
small screens, no keyboard, and no mouse) have similar functional needs as some
users with disabilities.
- Accessibility
Information
- Accessibility information is content, including information and markup,
that is used to improve the accessibility of a document. Accessibility
information includes, but is not limited to, equivalent alternative information.
- Accessibility
Problem (Also:
Inaccessible Markup)
- Inaccessible Web content or authoring tools cannot be used by some people
with disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
[WAI-WEBCONTENT] describes how to create accessible Web content.
- Accessible Authoring
Practice
- Practices that improve the accessibility of Web content. Both authors and
tools engage in accessible authoring practices. For example, authors write
clearly, structure their content, and provide navigation aids. Tools generate
valid markup and assist authors in providing and managing appropriate
equivalent alternatives.
- Alert
- An alert draws the author's attention to an event or situation. It may
require a response from the author.
- Alternative Information (Also:
Equivalent
Alternative)
- Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the
same function or purpose upon presentation to the user. Equivalent alternatives
play an important role in accessible authoring practices since certain types of
content may not be accessible to all users (e.g., video, images, audio, etc.).
Authors are encouraged to provide text equivalents for non-text content since
text may be rendered as synthesized speech for individuals who have visual or
learning disabilities, as braille for individuals who are blind, or as
graphical text for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability. For
more information about equivalent alternatives, please refer to
[WAI-WEBCONTENT].
- Attribute
- This document uses the term "attribute" as used in SGML and XML ([XML]): Element types may be
defined as having any number of attributes. In the following example, the
attributes of the
beverage
element type are
"flavour"
, which has the value "lots", and "colour"
, which
has the value "red":
<beverage flavour="lots" colour="red">my favourite</beverage>
- Some attributes are integral to document accessibility (e.g., the
"alt"
, "title"
, and "longdesc"
attributes in
HTML).
- Auditory Description
- An auditory description provides information about actions, body language,
graphics, and scene changes in a video. They are commonly used by people who
are blind or have low vision, although they may also be used as a low-bandwidth
equivalent on the Web. An auditory description is either a pre-recorded human
voice or a synthesized voice (recorded or generated on the fly). The auditory
description must be synchronized with the audio track of a video presentation,
usually during natural pauses in the audio track.
- Authoring Tool
- An authoring tool is any software that is used to generate content for
publishing on the Web. Authoring tools include:
- Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content (e.g., WYSIWYG
HTML and XML editors);
- Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web format (e.g., word
processors or desktop publishing packages);
- Tools that translate documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to translate
desktop publishing formats to HTML);
- Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is intended for use on
the Web (e.g., video production and editing suites, SMIL authoring
packages);
- Tools for site management or site publication, including tools that
generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-fly conversion and Web
site publishing tools;
- Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).
- Captions
- Captions are essential text
equivalents for movie audio. Captions consist of a text transcript of the audio track of the movie (or
other video presentation) that is synchronized with the video and audio tracks.
Captions are generally rendered graphically and benefit people who can see but
are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or cannot hear the audio.
- Conversion Tool
- A conversion tool is any application or application feature that allows
content in some other format (proprietary or not) to be converted automatically
into a particular markup language. This includes software whose primary
function is to convert documents to a particular markup language as well as
"save as HTML" (or other markup
language) features in non-markup applications.
- Check for
- As used in checkpoint
4.1, check for can refer to three types of checking:
- In some instances an authoring tool will be able to check automatically.
For example checking for validity Refer also to checkpoint 2.2. or testing whether an image is the
only content of a link.
- In some cases the tool will be able to "suspect" or "guess"that there is a
problem, but will need to confirm with the author. For example, in making sure
that a sensible reading order is preserved a tool can present a linearized
version of a page to the author.
- In some cases a tool must rely mostly on the author, and can only ask the
author to check. For example, prompting the author to check whether equivalent
alternatives for multimedia are appropriate. This is the minimal standard to be
satisfied. Subtle, rather than extensive, prompting is more likely to be
effective in encouraging the user to verify accessibility where it cannot be
done automatically.
- Document
- A document is a series of elements that are defined by a
markup language (e.g., HTML 4.0 or an XML
application).
- Editing View
- A view provided by the authoring tool that allows
editing. Some authoring tools will have several different types of view, and
some allow views of several documents at once.
- Element
- An element is any identifiable object within a document, for example a
character, word, image, paragraph or spreadsheet cell. In [HTML40] and [XML], an element refers to a pair of tags and
their content, or an "empty" tag - one that requires no closing tag or
content.
- Markup Language
- Authors encode information using a markup language such as HTML ([HTML40]), SVG ([SVG]), or MathML ([MATHML]).
- Prompt
- A prompt is a request for user input, either information or a decision. A
prompt requires author response. For example, an "alt-text" entry field
prominently displayed in an image insertion dialog would constitute a prompt.
Prompts can be used to encourage authors to provide information needed to make
content accessible (such as alternative
text equivalents).
- Property
- A property is a piece of information about an element, for example
structural information (e.g., it is item number 7 in a list, or plain text) or
presentation information (e.g., that it is marked as bold, its font size is
14). In XML and HTML, properties of an element include the name of the element
(e.g.,
IMG
or DL
), the values of its attributes, and information associated by means of a
style sheet. In a database, properties of a particular element may include
values of the entry, and acceptable data types for that element.
- The rendered content is that which an element actually causes to be
rendered by the user agent. This may differ from the element's structural
content. For example, some elements cause external data to be rendered (e.g.,
the
IMG
element in [HTML40]), and in some cases, browsers may render the value of an
attribute (e.g., "alt"
, "title"
) in place of the
element's content.
- Transcript
- A transcript is a line by line record of sounds within an audio clip, or an
audio track from a video clip. A collated text transcript for a video combines
(collates) caption text with text descriptions of video information
(descriptions of the actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes of the
video track). Collated text transcripts are essential for individuals who are
deaf-blind and rely on braille for access to movies and other content.
- Transformation
- A process that changes a document or object into another, equivalent,
object according to a discrete set of rules. This includes any application or
application feature that allows content which is marked up in a particular
markup language to be transformed into another markup language, such as a
conversion tool, software that allows the author to change the DTD defined for the original document to
another DTD, and the ability to
change the markup of lists and convert them into tables.
- User Agent
- An application that retrieves and renders Web content. User agents include
browsers, plug-ins for a particular media type, and some assistive
technologies.
- A user-configurable schedule allows the user to determine the type of
prompts and alerts that are used, including when they are presented.
- View
- Authoring tools may render the same content in a variety of ways; each
rendering is called a view. For instance, one view may show raw markup, a
second may show a structured tree, a third may show markup with rendered
objects while a final view shows an example of how the document may appear if
it were to be rendered by a particular browser. A typical way to distinguish
views in a graphic environment is to place each in a separate window.
Many thanks to the following people who have contributed through review and
comment: Jim Allan, Denis Anson, Kitch Barnicle, Kynn Bartlett, Harvey Bingham,
Judy Brewer, Carl Brown, Dick Brown, Wendy Chisholm, Rob Cumming, Daniel
Dardailler, Mark Day, BK Delong, Martin Dürst, Kelly Ford, Jamie Fox, Edna
French, Sylvain Galineau, Al Gilman, Eric Hansen, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday,
Brian Kelly, Marja-Riitta Koivunen, Sho Kuwamoto, Jaap van Lelieveld, William
Loughborough, Karen McCall, Charles Oppermann, Dave Pawson, Dave Poehlman,
Bruce Roberts, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Janina Sajka, John Slatin, Jim
Thatcher, Irène Vatton, Gregg Vanderheiden, Pawan Vora, Jason White, and
Lauren Wood.
For the latest version of any
W3C specification please consult the list of W3C
Technical Reports.
- [HTML40]
- "HTML 4.0
Recommendation," D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, eds., 17 December
1997, revised 24 April 1998. This HTML 4.0 Recommendation is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424. The latest version of HTML 4.0 is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40.
- [MATHML]
- "Mathematical
Markup Language," P. Ion and R. Miner, eds., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July
1999. This MathML 1.0 Recommendation is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.
- [SVG]
- "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0
Specification" (Working Draft), J. Ferraiolo, ed. The latest version of the
SVG specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG
- [WAI-AUTOOLS-CHECKLIST]
- An appendix to this document lists all of the checkpoints, sorted by
priority. The checklist is available in either tabular
form (at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210/checkpoint-table) or list form (at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991210/checkpoint-list).
- [WAI-AUTOOLS-TECHS]
- "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility," J. Treviranus,
J. Richards, I. Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile eds. The latest version is
available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-TECHS.
- [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/.
- [XML]
- "The Extensible Markup Language
(XML) 1.0," T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen eds. The latest
version of The XML Specification is
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.