This document provides guidelines to Web authoring tool manufacturers and
developers. The purpose of this document is two-fold: to assist developers in
designing authoring tools that generate accessible Web content and to assist
developers in creating an accessible authoring tool user interface.
Accessible Web content is achieved by encouraging authoring tool users
("authors") to create accessible Web content (through mechanisms such as
prompts, alerts, checking and repair functions, help files and automated
tools), and by ensuring that the automatic processes of the authoring tool
generate accessible content. This will result in the proliferation of Web
pages that can be read by a broader range of readers and in authoring tools
which can be used by a broader range of users .
Ensure that accessibility features never interfere with any of the expected
operations of and author's editing environment. Fundamental operations such as
saving, closing, and putting should not be cancelled or postponed due to the
existence of accessibility problems
This document is part of a series of accessibility documents published by the
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.
This is a W3C Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines for
review by W3C Members and other interested parties. It is a draft document and
may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts 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 (AU) Working Group.
This document reflects the consensus of the group following a face to face
meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Although the entire document is subject
to revision, areas where it is expected to be swift and substantial are the
assignation of priority to all checkpoints, and a changed definition of
priorities, and the number and names of guidelines in Section 3.
It is expected that the Guidelines Document will be Proposed as a
recommendation by the W3C. The Working Group does not plan to include the
Techniques listed in this document as part of any recommendation, but to refer
to them as an informative source.
The goals of the WAI AU Working Group
are discussed in the WAI AU charter.
Please send comments about this document to the public mailing list: w3c-wai-au@w3.org.
The guidelines in this document are meant to help authoring tool developers
and vendors design products that encourage authors to adopt accessible
authoring practices. For the purposes of this document the term "authoring
tool" will refer to authoring tools, generation tools and conversion tools. These guidelines emphasize
the role of the user interface in informing, supporting, correcting and
motivating authors during the editing process. For a more detailed discussion
of accessible Web authoring practices, see the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines.
The guidelines documents have been organized to address readers seeking
abstract principles of accessible authoring tool design and readers seeking
concrete solutions. The guidelines documents define three terms for
different levels of abstraction:
- Guideline
-
A guideline is a general principle of accessible authoring tool design. A
guideline addresses the question "What accessibility issues should I be aware
of?"
- Checkpoint
-
A checkpoint is a specific way of satisfying one or more guidelines. While
checkpoints describe verifiable actions that may be carried out by the
authoring tool developer, implementation details are described elsewhere. A
checkpoint answers the question "What must/should/may I do to make an
authoring tool (and the content it produces) accessible?"
- Technique
-
A technique is an implementation of one or more checkpoints in a given
language (e.g., HTML, XML, CSS, DOM, ...). A technique answers the question
"How do I implement that in an authoring tool?"
Each checkpoint in this document is assigned a priority that indicates its
importance for users.
[Editors' note: Checkpoint priorities are a known subject for review by the
Working Group.]
- [Priority 1]
-
[Editors' note: This definition will be modified] This checkpoint must be
implemented by authoring tools, otherwise one or more groups of users with
disabilities will find it impossible to access some function of the tool, or
some content produced by it. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement
for some individuals to be able to use the authoring tool or its output.
- [Priority 2]
-
[Editors' note: This definition will be modified] This checkpoint should be
implemented by authoring tools, otherwise one or more groups of users will
find it difficult to use the tool or content produced by it. Satisfying this
checkpoint will significantly improve access to the authoring tool or its
output for some individuals.
- [Priority 3]
-
[Editors' note: This definition will be modified] This checkpoint may be
implemented by authoring tools, to make it easier for one or more groups of
users to author or access content. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve the
accessibility of the authoring tool or its output for some individuals.
- [Priority X]
-
The working group has not assigned priorities to all checkpoints. In some
cases priorities have been suggested, and in other cases they are simply left
undefined for the present working draft..
This document also refers to guidelines, checkpoints, and techniques defined
in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
and to priorities assigned to them (indicated, for example, by [Web-Content-Priority 1]).
[Editors' note: This introduction will include a brief introduction to the
priniciples of accessible design, explicitly referring the user to fuller
treatments elsewhere]
Authoring Tools are used to automate the low-level tasks involved in producing
Web pages. The power of this automation can enhance the accessibility of the
Web if it is used to ensure that the code produced promotes accessibility, and
frees the author to concentrate on the higher level problems of overall
design, content, description, etc. Methods for ensuring the accessibility of
markup differ between languages and versions. It is imperative that authoring
tools must be capable of handling (parsing?) the specific features of its
particular language required for accessibility.
Ensure that accessibility features never interfere with any of the expected
operations of and author's editing environment. Fundamental operations such as
saving, closing, and putting should not be cancelled or postponed due to the
existence of accessibility problems
The first step towards accessibility is conformance with standards, which
promotes interoperability.
Checkpoints:
- 2.1.1: [Priority 2]
-
Use applicable W3C specifications.
- 2.1.2: [Priority 1]
-
Extensions to W3C specifications must not reduce accessibility.
Methods for ensuring accessible markup vary with different markup languages.
If markup is automatically generated, many authors will be unaware of the
accessibility status of the final product unless they expend extra effort to
make appropriate corrections by hand. Since most authors are unfamiliar with
accessibility, these problems are likely to remain.
Checkpoints:
- 2.2.1: [Priority 1]
-
Implement all accessibility features that have been defined for the markup
language(s) supported by the tool.
- 2.2.2: [Priority 1]
-
Produce content that conforms to the WCGL.
- 2.2.3: [Priority 1]
-
Make sure that templates to be inserted in the document comply with W3C Web
Content Guidelines
Techniques:
Listing the accessibility features of specific languages lies beyond the scope
of this document. However, an informative list of documents that address
accessible Web authoring practices follows.:
Produce text representations for site maps generated by the authoring
tool.
Web Content Accessibility Features
(The actual accessible markup solutions)
General: Checkpoints for Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines
HTML4: HTML4 Accessibility Improvements
CSS2: CSS2 Accessibility Improvements
SMIL, MathML:
General: Web Content Implementation
Priorities (The priorities placed on the accessibility markup
solutions)
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Textual descriptions, including "alt"-text, long descriptions, video captions,
and transcripts are absolutely necessary for the accessibility of all images,
applets, video, and audio files. However, the task of writing these
descriptions is probably the most time-consuming accessibility recommendation
made to the author.
Including professionally written descriptions for all multimedia files (e.g.,
clip art) packed with the software will:
-
save users time and effort
-
cause a significant number of professionally written descriptions to circulate
on the Web
-
provide users with convenient models to emulate when they write their own
descriptions
-
show authors the importance of description writing
leading to an increase in the average quality of descriptions used.
Checkpoints:
- 2.3.1: [Priority 1]
-
Prompt the author to provide alternative content (e.g. captions, descriptive
video)
- 2.3.2: [Priority 1]
-
Prompt the author for all missing structural information (e.g. TABLE scope,
LABELs for FORMs).
- 2.3.3: [Priority 2]
-
Offer pre-written alternative content for all multimedia files packaged with
the authoring tool.
- 2.3.4: [Priority X]
-
Alt-text registry - prewritten and incremental.
- 2.3.5: [Priority X]
-
Do not generate description text or insert place-holder text except
human-authored description text when the meaning or function of the described
object is known with certainty.
Techniques
An extensive example is provided elsewhere in this
document
Allow authors to make keyword searches of a description database (to simplify
the task of finding relevant images).
Provide an author with the option of specifying alternate content, or electing
to insert null alternate content. Default to an accessibility error such as no
"alt" attribute for images
Suggest pre-written descriptions as default text whenever one of the
associated files is inserted into the author's document.
Allow authors to add objects and alternative content to a database.
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.
Checkpoints:
[Editors' note: looking for 'fewest steps/most efficient, visible/obvious,
coming at top of choices]
- 2.4.1: [Priority X]
-
Ensure that the highest-priority authoring practices are the most visible and
easily initiated by the author.
- 2.4.2: [Priority 2]
-
Integrate accessibility features into the overall "look and feel" of the
authoring tool.
Many applications feature the ability to convert documents from other formats
(e.g., Rich Text Format) into a markup format, such as HTML. Markup changes
may also be made to facilitate efficient editing and manipulation. These
processes are usually hidden from the user's view and may create inaccessible
content or cause inaccessible content to be produced.
Checkpoints:
[Editors' note: there are several unresolved issues here: ignore what you dont
understand vs validate, 'don't strip stuff, add junk, or alter', 'author
choice vs under the hood (which people like)']
- 2.5.1: [Priority 1]
-
Never remove markup that is known to promote accessibility.
- 2.5.2: [Priority X]
Never removed unrecognised markup without alerting the author
Techniques:
Provide a summary of all automated structural changes that may affect
accessibility.
Do not change the DTD without notification
Many authoring tools allow their users to create documents with little or no
knowledge about the underlying markup. To ensure accessibility, authoring
tools must be designed so that they may automatically identify inaccessible
content, and enable its correction even when the markup itself is hidden from
the author.
In supporting the creation of accessible Web content, authoring tools must
take into account the differing authoring styles of their users. Some users
may prefer to be alerted to problems when they occur, whereas others may
prefer to perform a check after the document is completed. This is analogous
to programming environments that allow users to decide whether to check for
correct code during editing or at compile time.
Ensure that accessibility features never interfere with any of the expected
operations of an author's editing environment. Fundamental operations
such as saving, closing, and pasting should not be canceled or postponed due
to the existence of accessibility problems.
Checkpoints:
- 2.6.1: [Priority X]
-
Check for and alert the author of accessibility and validity problems.
- 2.6.2: [Priority X]
-
Allow users to control both the nature and timing of accessibility alerts (for
a given set of options).
- 2.6.3: [Priority X]
-
Assist authors in correcting accessibility and validity problems in a way that
is consistent with the look and feel of the authoring tool.
- 2.6.4: [Priority 3]
-
Provide the author with a summary of accessibility status on a configurable
schedule.
- 2.6.5: [Priority X]
-
Allow users to choose different alert levels based on the priority of
authoring accessibility recommendations.
- 2.6.6: [Priority X]
-
Include alerts for [Web-Content-Priority
1] checkpoints in the default configuration.
Techniques:
If interruptive warnings are used provide a means for the author to quickly
set the warning to non-obtrusive to avoid frustration.
Allow authors to control both the nature and timing of the correction
process
explain 'in a way consistent with look and feel...'?
ways of alerting, and of providing feedback (intrusive and non-intrusive)
The issues surrounding Web accessibility are often unknown to Web authors.
Help and documentation should explain accessibility problems and solutions,
with examples.
Checkpoints:
- 2.7.1: [Priority X]
-
Explain the use of accessibility features supported by the authoring tool
- 2.7.2: [Priority X]
-
Integrate applicable accessibility features in any discussion of the help
system
- 2.7.3: [Priority 1]
-
Examples must not use inaccessible markup
- 2.7.4: [Priority 3]
-
Emphasise the universal benefit of accessible design
Techniques:
Implement context-sensitive help for all special accessibility terms, as well
as tasks related to accessibility.
Link those mechanisms used to identify accessibility problems (e.g., icons,
outlining or other emphasis within the user interface) to help files.
In help text, when explaining the accessibility barriers of non-deprecated
elements, emphasize appropriate solutions rather than explicitly discouraging
the use of the element.
Explain the importance of utilizing accessibility features generally and for
specific instances.
In help text, emphasize accessibility features that benefit multiple
groups.
Ensure that accessibility solutions are present in all help text descriptions
of markup practices (ex. IMG elements should appear with "alt"-text).
Provide examples of all accessibility solutions in help text, including those
of lower Web-Content-Priority.
Link from help text to any automated correction utilities.
Principles to consider in making the authoring tool accessible to authors with
disabilities relate to 3 classes of functionality:
-
The authoring tool is a software program with standard user interface elements
and as such should follow relevant user interface accessibility guidelines
(links to TRACE guidelines, Microsoft, SUN, DACX, Apple, IBM guidelines)
-
The authoring tool frequently encompasses the functionality of a user agent or
browser and as such should follow the User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines.
-
The authoring tool has unique functionality as a Web content editor.
Only access to the unique functionality of authoring tools will be addressed
in these guidelines.
[Editors' note: This introduction will be rewritten to include a very vbrief
overview of the main points raised by the documents to which it refers]
When creating or editing a Web page the desired ultimate rendering of the page
may not be optimal for creating and editing.
Checkpoints:
- 3.1.1: [Priority 1]
-
Ensure that style used to while authoring are independent of those used for
the published document (e.g., the font size, letter and line spacing, and text
and background color, etc.).
- 3.1.2: [Priority X]
-
Allow the author to display a textual equivalent of content while editing
- 3.2.1: [Priority X]
-
Provide a structure view
Graphically represented elements cannot be identified by third-party assistive
technologies that translate text to Braille, speech, or large print. Some
authoring tools display start and end tags as graphics.
Checkpoints:
- 3.3.1: [Priority X]
-
Allow the author to display start and end tags in a text format.
- 3.3.2: [Priority X]
-
Allow the author to display the site map in text form (e.g., as a structured
tree file).
Techniques:
Surround start and end tags with text brackets to help distinguish them from
the remainder of the document.
The Sample Implementations are not Guidelines, they are Techniques.
The section has been included to illustrate how the design principles embodied
in the guidelines sections can be applied to concrete issues. The specific
ideas discussed in this section are meant to be used only as
clarification.
This appendix has not been updated since the 25 February draft of the
document.
"Alt"-text is generally considered the most important aid to accessibility.
For this reason, the issue of "alt"-text has been chosen as the subject for
the first sample implementation.
- 2.1 Generate standard markup
-
Implementation: In any content produced, the IMG element is always
properly formed as defined in the HTML4 specification. This means that the
element contains both a "src" attribute and an "alt" attribute.
- 2.2 Support all accessibility features of W3C recommendations
-
Implementation: Due the [Web-Content-Priority 1] recommendation
status of "alt"-text in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, special
attention will be devoted to prompting and guiding the user toward full "alt"
coverage.
- [-Ginserted-markup]
-
Implementation: If the user drags an image from the desktop into the
authoring tool, the user will be prompted for "alt"-text for the IMG element
(unless the user has postponed this task).
- 2.6 Provide Methods of checking and correcting inaccessible content
-
Implementation: If the user opens content or pastes in markup
containing an IMG element that lacks "alt"-text, the author is prompted to add
them (unless they have configured the tool to postpone this task).
- 2.5 Never remove existing accessible structure
-
Implementation: The authoring tool has the capability of opening and
converting word processor documents into HTML. If an image is encountered
during this process, the user will be prompted for "alt"-text. The authoring
tool sometimes makes changes to the HTML it works with to allow more efficient
manipulation. These changes never result in the removal or
modification of "alt"-text entries.
- 2.3 Make sure that no accessibility content is missing
-
Implementation: The authoring tool is shipped with many ready-to-use
clip art and other images. For each of these images a short "alt"-text string
and a longer description have been pre-written and stored in the "alt"-text
registry.
- [-Gaccessible-practice]
-
Implementation: The "alt" attribute appears immediately below the
"src" attribute in the image properties listing. Whenever the properties for
an image without "alt"-text are examined, visual highlighting of the "alt"
entry field remind the user that "alt"-text should not be left empty. In
addition, when an image without "alt"-text is selected, Insert
"alt"-text is one of the options presented to the user.
- 2.7 Promote accessibility in help and documentation
-
Implementation: Whenever missing "alt"-text is flagged (anywhere in
the tool suite) the same quick explanation, extended help, and examples are
offered.
- [-Gprovide-rationales]
-
Implementation: In addition to describing the need for "alt"-text for
access by people with visual disabilities, the rationales mention how
"alt"-text allows users of Web phones and other non-visual browsing
technologies to access the content of the image.
- [-Ghelp-examples]
-
Implementation: Whenever the IMG element appears in the help system,
the "alt" attribute is always present. Links to "alt"-text specific help and
rationale are provided.
- [-Guser-configure]
-
Implementation: A configuration system allows the user to decide
whether they wish to be reminded each time they place an IMG element without
"alt"-text or if they will complete the "alt"-text entry task at a later time.
The configuration system does not contain the option of disabling "alt"-text
checking completely. Other options allow the user to specify the behavior of
the "alt"-text registry.
- 2.4 Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel"
-
Implementation: At no point do "alt"-text requests appear on
their own or in a non-standard manner. Instead "alt"-text notices and
emphasis appear as integrated and necessary as the "src" attribute.
- [-Gpositive-feedback]
-
Implementation: Whenever an accessibility checker completes a run, a
summary list of accessibility issues is presented. When the user has entered
"alt"-text for all the images in a document, the "alt"-text completed box will
be checked in the summary. This box will remain checked as long as no images
without "alt"-text are added.
Interface mechanisms such as dialogs, menus, toolbars, and palettes can be
structured so that markup or elements that are accessible are given as the
first and easiest choice.
Prompts can be used to encourage authors to provide information needed to make
the content accessible (such as alternative textual representations). Prompts
are simple requests for information before a markup structure has been
finalized. For example, an "alt"-text entry field prominently displayed in an
image insertion dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts are relatively
unintrusive and address a problem before it has been committed. However, once
the user has ignored the prompt, its message is unavailable.
Alerts warn the author that there are problems that need to be addressed. The
art of attracting users' attention is a tricky issue. The way in which users
are alerted, prompted, or warned will influence their view of the tool as well
as their opinion of accessible authoring.
The following are sample alert possibilities with a short definition and a
brief discussion of their advantages and disadvantages.
- Interruptive Alerts
-
Interruptive alerts are informative messages that interrupt the edit process
for the user. For example, interruptive alerts are often presented when a
user's action could cause a loss of data. Interruptive alerts allow problems
to be brought to the user's attention immediately. However, users may resent
the constant delays and forced actions. Many people prefer to finish
expressing an idea before returning to edit its format.
- Unintrusive Alerts
-
Unintrusive alerts are alerts such as icons, underlines, and gentle sounds
that can be presented to the user without necessitating immediate action. for
example, in some word processors misspelled text is highlighted without
forcing the user to make immediate corrections. These alerts allow users to
continue editing with the knowledge that problems will be easy to identify at
a later time. However, users may become annoyed at the extra formatting or may
choose to ignore the alerts altogether.
- Prompts
-
Prompts are simple requests for information before a markup structure has been
finalized.
- Alert Tools
-
Alert tools allow a batch detection process to address all problems at a given
time.
- Authoring Tool
-
An Authoring Tool is any application that is specifically designed
to aid users in editing markup and presentation language documents. The
editing processes covered by this definition may range from direct hand coding
(with automated syntax support or other markup specific features) to WYSIWYG
editors that do not present the actual underlying markup to the author for
editing. This definition does not include text editors and word
processors that also allow HTML to be hand produced.
- 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.
- Generation Tool
-
A Generation Tool is a program or script that produces automatic
markup "on the fly" by following a template or set of rules. The generation
may be performed on either the server or client side.
- Site Management Tool
-
A tool that provides an overview of an entire Web site indicating hierarchical
structure. It will facilitate management through functions that may include
automatic index creation, automatic link updating, and broken link checking.
- Publishing Tool
-
A tool that allows content to be uploaded in an integrated fashion. Sometimes
these tools makes changes such as local hyper-reference modifications.
Although these tools sometimes stand alone, they may also be integrated into
site management tools.
- Image Editor
-
A graphics program that provides a variety of options for altering images of
different formats.
- Video Editor
-
A tool that facilitates the process of manipulating video images. Video
editing includes cutting segments (trimming), re-sequencing clips, and adding
transitions and other special effects.
- Multi-media Authoring Tool
-
Software that facilitates integration of diverse media elements into an
comprehensive presentation format. May incorporate video, audio, images,
animations, simulations, and other interactive components.
- Automated Markup Insertion
Function
-
Automated markup insertion functions are the features of an authoring tool
that allow the user to produce markup without directly typing it. This
includes a wide range of tools from simple markup insertion aids (such as a
bold button on a toolbar) to markup managers (such as table makers that
include powerful tools such as "split cells" that can make multiple changes)
to high level site building wizards that produce almost complete documents on
the basis of a series of user preferences.
- Document
-
A document is a series of elements that are defined by a language
(e.g., HTML 4.0 or an XML application).
- Element
-
Each element consists of a name that identifies the type of
element, optional attributes that take values, and (possibly empty) content.
- Attributes
-
Some attributes are integral to document accessibility (e.g., the
"alt", "title", and "longdesc" attributes in HTML).
- Rendered Content
-
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 HTML), and in some cases, browsers may render the value of
an attribute (e.g., "alt", "title") in place of the element's content.
- Accessibility Awareness
-
The term accessibility awareness is used to describe an application that has
been designed to maximize the ease of use of the interface and its products
for people with differing needs, abilities and technologies. In the case of
authoring tools, this means that (1) care has been taken to ensure that the
content produced by user-authors is accessible and (2) that the user interface
has been designed to be usable with a variety of display and control
technologies.
- Inaccessible Markup, Inaccessible
Element, Inaccessible Attribute, Inaccessible Authoring Practice and Access
Barrier
-
All these terms are used in the context of inaccessibility as defined by the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
- Accessibility Solution,
Accessible Authoring Practice
-
These terms refer to markup checkpoints than can be used to eliminate or
reduce accessibility problems as they are defined above.
- Alternate Textual Representations
-
Certain types of content may not be accessible to all users (e.g., images), so
authoring tools must ensure that alternate textual
representations ("Alt-text") of information is available to the
user. Alternate text can come from element content (e.g., the OBJECT element)
or attributes (e.g., "alt" or "title").
- Description Link (D-link)
-
A description link, or D-Link, is an author-supplied link to
additional information about a piece of content that might otherwise be
difficult to access (image, applet, video, etc.).
- Transcripts
-
A transcript is a line by line record of all dialog and action within a video
or audio clip.
- Video Captions
-
A video caption is a textual message that is stored in the text track of a
video file. The video caption describes the action and dialog for the scene in
which it is displayed.
- Inserting an element
-
Inserting an element involves placing that element's markup within
the markup of the file. This applies to all insertions, including, but not
limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, choosing an automated
insertion from a pull-down menu or tool bar button, "drag-and-drop" style
insertions, or "paste" operations.
- Editing an element
-
Editing an element involves making changes to one or more of an
element's attributes or properties. This applies to all editing, including,
but not limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, making changes to a
property dialog or direct UI manipulation.
- Views
-
An authoring tool may offer several views of the same document. For
instance, one view may show raw markup, a second may show a structured tree
view, 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.
- Selection
-
A selection is a set of elements identified for a particular
operation. The user selection identifies a set of elements for certain types
of user interaction (e.g., cut, copy, and paste operations). The user
selection may be established by the user (e.g., by a pointing device or the
keyboard) or via an accessibility API. A view may have several selections, but
only one user selection.
- Current User Selection
-
When several views co-exist, each may have a user selection, but only one is
active, called the current user selection. The selections may be
rendered specially (e.g., visually highlighted).
- Focus
-
The focus designates the active element (e.g., link, form control,
element with associated scripts, etc.) in a view that will react when the user
next interacts with the document.
Many thanks to the following people who have contributed through review and
comment: Jim Allen, Kynn Bartlett, Harvey Bingham, Judy Brewer, Carl Brown,
Wendy Chisholm, Rob Cumming, Daniel Dardailler, Mark Day, BK Delong, Jamie
Fox, Sylvain Galineau, Phill Jenkins, William Loughborough, Charles Oppermann,
Dave Pawson, Bruce Roberts, Irène Vatton and Gregg Vanderheiden.
If you have contributed to the AU guidelines and your name does not
appear please contact the editors to add your name to the list.
- [HTML40]
-
"HTML 4.0 Recommendation", D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, eds. The
HTML 4.0 Recommendation is available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/
- [CSS1]
-
"CSS, level 1 Recommendation", B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, eds. The CSS1
Recommendation is available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
- [CSS2]
-
"CSS, level 2 Recommendation", B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, C. Lilley, and I. Jacobs,
eds. The CSS2 Recommendation is available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
- [WAI-PAGEAUTH]
-
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I.
Jacobs, eds. These guidelines for designing accessible documents are available
at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH/
- [Web-Content-Techniques]
-
"Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines", W. Chisholm, G.
Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds. These guidelines for designing accessible
documents are available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH/wai-pageauth-tech
- [WAI-USERAGENT]
-
"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines", J. Gunderson and I. Jacobs, eds. These
guidelines for designing accessible user agents are available at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-WAI-USERAGENT/
- [CSS2-ACCESS]
-
"WAI Resources: CSS2 Accessibility Improvements", I. Jacobs and J. Brewer,
eds. This document, which describes accessibility features in CSS2, is
available at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/CSS2-access
- [HTML4-ACCESS]
-
"WAI Resources: HTML 4.0 Accessibility Improvements", I. Jacobs, J. Brewer,
and D. Dardailler, eds. This document, which describes accessibility features
in HTML 4.0, is available at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/HTML4-access
- [Access Aware Authoring Tools]
-
"The Three-tions of Accessibility-Aware HTML Authoring Tools", J. Richards.
Available at:
http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/rd/hm/3tions.htm