This specification provides guidelines for Web authoring tool developers.
Its purpose is two-fold: to assist developers in designing authoring tools
that produce accessible Web content and to assist developers in creating an
accessible authoring interface.
Authoring tools can enable, encourage, and assist users ("authors") in the
creation of accessible Web content through prompts, alerts, checking and
repair functions, help files and automated tools. It is just as important that
all people be able to author content as it is for all people to have access to
it. 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 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
(WAI).
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 is the first Working Group internal draft of a document to supersede
the W3C Recommendation Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. It is made available for review by the
Working group, as an initial proposal for a new version of Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines. This draft still refers to the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. It is expected (but not guaranteed) that if Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 becomes a Recommendation, this document
will refer to that, and become Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines version
2.0.
The working group expects this version to be backwards-compatible with the
existing Recommendation, or at least to have only minor changes in
requirements. It is expected to be easier to use. It results in experience
with the Version 1.0 Recommendation.
As an initial internal draft, this document still refers to the Techniques
Note for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. As part of development
of this draft, it is expected that the group will draft a matching version of
that Note.
A log of changes between
successive Working Drafts is available.
For further information about Working Group decisions, please consult the
minutes of AUWG
Meetings.
This document has been produced by the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
Working Group (AUWG)
as part of the Web Accessibility Initiative
(WAI). The goals of the
Working Group are discussed in the AUWG charter.
Please send general comments about this document to the public mailing
list: w3c-wai-au@w3.org (public
archives).
The English version of this specification will be the only normative
version. Information about translations of this document is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG-TRANSLATIONS.
A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents
including Working Drafts and Notes can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.
An appendix to this document [WOMBAT-CHECKLIST] lists all
checkpoints for convenient reference.
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 transform documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to
transform 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
automatically generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-fly
conversion tools, and Web site publishing tools;
- Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).
The goals of this document can be stated as follows: that the authoring
tool be accessible to authors regardless of disability, that it produce
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.
To achieve these goals, authoring tool developers must take steps such as
ensuring conformance to accessible standards (e.g., HTML 4), checking and
correcting accessibility problems, prompting, and providing appropriate
documentation and help. For detailed information about what constitutes
accessible content, these guidelines rely on the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. Similarly, rather than directly
reproducing existing specifications that address general accessible software
design, these guidelines rely on other sources. The present guidelines do
address accessible design considerations specific to Web authoring tools such
as providing flexible editing views, navigation aids and access to display
properties for authors.
The principles set forth in these guidelines will benefit many people who
do not have a disability but who have similar needs. This includes people who
work in noisy or quiet environments where the use of sound is not practical,
people who need to use their eyes for another task and are unable to view a
screen, and people who use small mobile devices that have a small screen, no
keyboard, and no mouse.
A separate document, entitled "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG10-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 as well as
"Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10-TECHS] and "Techniques for
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [UAAG10-TECHS].
Note: The techniques in [ATAG10-TECHS] are informative
examples only. Other strategies may be used to satisfy the checkpoints in
addition to, or in place of, those discussed in [ATAG10-TECHS].
Note: Authoring tools that conform to this document will
propagate accessible Web content and be useful to anyone regardless of
disability. There will also be authoring tools that produce accessible content
in favorable circumstances (e.g., a text editor used by a motivated author),
or provide an accessible interface to authors with certain disabilities, but
that do not conform to these guidelines.
The seven guidelines in this document are general principles for 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 "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG10-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 satisfy it.
An appendix to this specification [WOMBAT-CHECKLIST] lists all
checkpoints for convenient reference.
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 produce accessible content by default;
- That the authoring tool encourage the creation of accessible
content.
The 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 depends on the
corresponding priority in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 1.0 [WCAG10].
- It is priority 1 to satisfy the checkpoint for content features
that are a priority 1 requirement in WCAG 1.0.
- It is priority 2 to satisfy the checkpoint for content features
that are a priority 2 requirement in WCAG 1.0.
- It is priority 3 to satisfy the checkpoint for content features
that are a priority 3 requirement in WCAG 1.0.
For example:
- Providing text equivalents for images and
audio is a priority 1 requirement in WCAG 1.0 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 1.0.
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.
When a checkpoint in this document refers to the WCAG 1.0 [WCAG10], only
the WCAG 1.0
checkpoints that refer to content supported or automatically generated
by the authoring tool apply. Some of the applicable WCAG 1.0 checkpoints
may be satisfied automatically (without author participation) while
others require human judgment and support from the tool in the form of
prompts and documentation. Different tools may satisfy the same
checkpoint differently.
The priority level for each checkpoint has been chosen based on the
assumption that the author is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of
the authoring tool, and that the author has little or no 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 explains how to make a valid
claim that an authoring tool conforms to this document. Anyone may make a
claim (e.g., vendors about their own products, third parties about those
products, journalists about products, etc.). Claims may be published anywhere
(e.g., on the Web or in product documentation).
The conformance icons provided for
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 are not valid for expressing
conformance to this draft
A conformance claim must indicate what conformance level is met:
- Conformance Level "A": all Priority 1 checkpoints
(including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.
- Conformance Level "Double-A": all Priority 1 and 2
checkpoints (including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.
- Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3
checkpoints (including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.
Note: Conformance levels are spelled out in text (e.g.,
"Double-A" rather than "AA") so they may be understood when rendered as
speech.
A well-formed claim must include the following information:
- The guidelines title/version: "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
1.9 Working Group Internal Draft, 18 May 2001 ";
- The URI of the guidelines: http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG2/010518;
- The conformance level satisfied: "A",
"Double-A", or "Triple-A";
- The version number and operating system of the software covered by the
claim. Also indicate whether any upgrades or plug-ins are required;
- The date of the claim;
- The checkpoints of the chosen conformance level considered not
applicable.
This information may be provided in text or metadata markup (e.g., using
the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF10] and an RDF schema designed
for WAI conformance claims). All content in a claim provided
other than as metadata must be accessible according to the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10].
Here is an example of a claim expressed in HTML:
<p>MyAuthoringTool version 2.3 on MyOperatingSystem conforms to
<abbr title="the World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>'s
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.9 Working Group Internal Draft,
18 May 2001", available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG2/010518, level
Double-A. Details of this claim are provided at <a
href="http://example.com/details">
http://example.com/details</a>.</p>
A conformance claim is valid for a given conformance level if:
- The claim is well-formed, and
- The authoring tool satisfies all the checkpoints for that level.
Claimants (or relevant assuring parties) are responsible for the validity
of a claim. As of the publication of this document, W3C does not act as an
assuring party, but it may do so in the future, or establish recommendations
for assuring parties.
Claimants are expected to modify or retract a claim if it may be
demonstrated that the claim is not valid. Please note that it is not currently
possible to validate claims completely automatically.
There are currently no conformance icons available for this draft
specification. If it becomes a recommendation it is expected that there will
be conformance icons like those available for Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0.
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 review it and make appropriate corrections by hand. Since many authors are
unfamiliar with accessibility, authoring tools are responsible for
automatically generating accessible markup, and where appropriate, for guiding
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 when a tool hides the markup changes from the author's
view.
Checkpoints:
- 1.1 Ensure that the author can
produce accessible content in
the markup language(s)
supported by the tool. [Priority 1]
- The minimum requirement is that the author can add or edit any
elements or element properties of the language that can enhance
accessibility. One common way to minimally satisfy this is by allowing
editing of document source (but see guideline 5). A more advanced tool
will provide an integrated interface to properties affecting
accessibility (see also checkpoint 7.2)
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.1
- 1.2 Ensure that the tool
preserves all accessibility
information during authoring, transformations, and conversions. [Priority 1]
- At minimum, preserve all valid markup, regardless of whether or not
the tool is able to render it.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.2
- 1.3 Ensure that when the tool
automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]
- Any decisions made for the author by the tool should optimize the
accessibility of the content (as per WCAG). This applies to the choice
of markup type, file type, and markup practices. The author may be able
to override the choices proposed or made by the tool.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.3
- 1.4 Ensure that all
pre-authored content for the tool conforms to Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]
- For example, templates must include accessible markup and content.
Images and multimedia libraries must include accessible alternatives,
such as alt text and long descriptions for images and captions, auditory
descriptions and collated text transcriptions for movies. Applets and
scripts must be accessible and include functional alternatives.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.4
- 1.5 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.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.5
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. If the markup does not conform to W3C Recommendations, inform the
author.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 2.1
- 2.2 Ensure that markup which the
tool automatically generates is valid for the language the tool is
generating. [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.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 2.2
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 producing equivalent information, such as text
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, the tool 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]
- At times appropriate to the author-tool interaction, ask for (and
support the creation of) alternate text, captions, auditory
descriptions, collated text transcripts for video, etc.
Note: Some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.1
- 3.2 Help the author create
structured content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]
- Note: Some checkpoints in Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.2
- 3.3 Do not
automatically generate equivalent
alternatives. Do not reuse previously authored alternatives without
author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]
- The function of an object may be "known with
certainty" when the object is placed by the tool for a specific purpose
or the user has defined a purpose. For example, if a tool automatically
generates a navigation bar for all pages on a site, it is acceptable to
propagate the text
equivalent(s) for images that link to searching, the table of
contents, etc. When a new object is inserted and the function is
unknown, the tool should prompt
the author to enter an appropriate equivalent alternative without
providing a default entry, such as the file name. A default entry should
only be offered if it is human authored and has been previously
associated with the object by the author or within a pre-packaged
directory for the tool (ex. clip art gallery). Refer also to checkpoint 1.4 and checkpoint 3.4.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.3
- 3.4
Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3]
- Note: These alternative equivalents may be packaged
with the tool, written by the author, retrieved from the Web, etc.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.5
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.
Authoring tool support for the creation of accessible Web content should
account for different authoring styles. Authors who can configure the tool's
accessibility features to support their regular work patterns are more likely
to accept accessible authoring practices (refer to guideline 5).
For example, some authors 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 compilation.
Note: Validation of markup is an essential aspect of
checking the accessibility of content.
Checkpoints:
- 4.1
Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Relative Priority]
- At a minimum, prompt the author to manually check for specific
problems. Ideally, the checks should be automated to the greatest extent
possible..
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.1
- 4.2 Assist authors in
correcting accessibility
problems. [Relative Priority]
- At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with
the accessibility checking required by checkpoint 4.1.
Ideally, the author should be guided by examples, guidelines and
automated tools.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.2
- 4.4
Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status.
[Priority 3]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.4
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 software stability can be factors
affecting author acceptance of the new feature. In addition, the relative
prominence of different ways to accomplish the same task can influence which
one the author chooses. Therefore, it is important that creating accessible
content be a natural process when using an authoring tool.
Checkpoints:
- 5.1
Ensure that all functionality (prompts, checkers, information icons, etc.)
related to accessible
authoring practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and
feel of the tool. [Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 5.1
- 5.2 Ensure
that accessible
authoring practices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
[WCAG10] Priority
1 checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author.
[Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 5.2
Web authors may not be familiar with accessibility issues that arise when
creating Web content. Therefore, 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]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.1
- 6.2 Ensure that creating
accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation,
including examples. [Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.2
- 6.3 In a dedicated
section, document theprocess of producing accessible content. [Priority 3]
- At minimum, provide an overview of tags and attributes that are
required for or enhance accessibility. Ideally, the text should explain
which features help for which types of disability and tools; a general
overview of steps to produce accessible content would be helpful.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.3
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 be accessible through the standard access mechanisms for
the relevant platform so that assistive technologies can be used with
them.
Some additional user interface design considerations apply specifically to
Web authoring
tools. For instance, authoring tools must ensure that the author
can edit (in an editing
view) using one set of stylistic preferences and publish using
different styles. 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. Authors who cannot use a
mouse (e.g., people with physical disabilities or who are blind) must use the
slow and tiring process of moving one step at a time through the document to
access the desired content, unless more efficient navigation methods are
available. 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 Ensure that the authoring
interface follows all operating environment conventions that benefit
accessibility (Applies at three priority levels: [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).
- This checkpoint requires all aspects of the authoring interface to be
accessible to the author. This wide scope means that the checkpoint
applies to the implementation of all the other checkpoints in this
guidelines document. The techniques for this checkpoint include
references to checklists and guidelines for a number of platforms and to
general guidelines for accessible applications. In many cases
several sets of standards will be applicable.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.1
- 7.2 Ensure
that the authoring interface enables accessible editing of all element and object properties. [Priority 1]
- This checkpoint is a special case of checkpoint 7.1 that is especially
important to authoring tools. At minimum, the checkpoint requires at
least one accessible way to edit every element and object property
supported by the tool. More advanced implementations might ensure that
all of the ways in which the tool allows element and object properties
to be edited should be accessible.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.3
- 7.3 Ensure
that the authoring interface enables the author to edit the structure of the
document [Priority 2]
- This checkpoint is a special case of checkpoint 7.1 that is especially
important to authoring tools. At minimum, the checkpoint requires that
the author be able to copy, cut or paste an element and its content at
any level of the document tree hierarchy. More advanced implementations
might provide more powerful ways to edit elements or groups of elements
in the structure.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.3
- 7.4
Allow the display preferences of the authoring interface to be changed without affecting the document
markup. [Priority 1]
- This checkpoint applies primarily to WYSIWYG markup editing tools and
requires that the author be able to view the content, as it is being
authored, in a way that differs from the presumed default appearance of
the rendered content. At minimum there must be some mechanism for
changing the document display independently of the document markup.
There are a number of ways that this can be achieved, including
supporting operating environment display preferences and allowing the
author to specify an editing style sheet that is different from those
included with the end document. In addition, there must be some means by
which textual alternatives can be displayed to the author in place of
non-text elements.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.4
- 7.5
Ensure that the authoring interface enables accessible navigation of editing views via the document
structure. [Priority 2
(was P1 in ATAG10)]
- This checkpoint requires that tools make use of the structure of the
documents being edited, in order to simplify navigation for the author.
At minimum, the author should be able to move from element to element.
More advanced implementations might provide highly flexible mechanisms
that take advantage of the hierarchical nature of the document
tree.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.5
- 7.6 Ensure the authoring interface allows
the author to search within the editing views. [Priority 2]
- This checkpoint requires that tools provide a search facility. While
this is a common feature in most text markup editing tools, it is less
common for other authoring tools (i.e. SVG and editors). At minimum, the
tool should allow basic text search. More advance implementations might
have more powerful mechanisms that, for example, might search on the
basis of structure or similarity.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.6
- 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 authors 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 1.0
[WCAG10]
describes how to create accessible Web content.
- Accessible Authoring
Practice
- "Accessible authoring practices" 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 automatically 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 the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines WCAG 1.0 [WCAG10].
- 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. Some attributes are
integral to the accessibility of content (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. Auditory descriptions
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 automatically generated in real time).
The auditory description must be synchronized with the auditory track of
a video presentation, usually during natural pauses in the auditory
track.
- Authoring
Tool
- An "authoring tool" is any software that is used to produce 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 transform documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to
transform 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 automatically 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 auditory track of the movie (or other video
presentation) that is synchronized with the video and auditory 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 (e.g.,
"Save as HTML") that transforms convent in one format to another format
(such as a markup language).
- 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 for
accessibility problems automatically. For example, checking for
validity (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 confirmation from 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, the tool may prompt the author
to verify that 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 author 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 or an XML application).
- Editing View
- An "editing view" is a view
provided by the authoring tool that allows editing.
- Element
- An "element" is any identifiable object within a document, for
example, a character, word, image, paragraph or spreadsheet cell. In [HTML4] 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.
- Inform
- To "inform" is to make the author aware of an event or situation
through alert,
prompt, sound, flash, or other
means.
- Markup
Language
- Authors encode information using a "markup language" such as HTML [HTML4], SVG [SVG], or MathML [MATHML].
- Presentation Markup
- "Presentation markup" is markup
language that encodes information about the desired
presentation or layout of the content. For example, Cascading Style
Sheets ([CSS1],
[CSS2]) can be
used to control fonts, colors, aural rendering, and graphical
positioning. Presentation markup should not be used in place of structural markup to convey structure.
For example, authors should mark up lists in HTML with proper list
markup and style them with CSS (e.g., to control spacing, bullets,
numbering, etc.). Authors should not use other CSS or HTML incorrectly
to lay out content graphically so that it resembles a list.
- Prompt
- A "prompt" is a request for author input, either information or a
decision. A prompt requires author response. For example, a text equivalent 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
type 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 entry.
- Structural Markup
- "Structural markup" is markup
language that encodes information about the structural role
of elements of the content. For example, headings, sections, members of
a list, and components of a complex diagram can be identified using
structural markup. Structural markup should not be used incorrectly to
control presentation or layout. For example, authors should not use the
BLOCKQUOTE element in HTML [HTML4] to achieve an indentation
visual layout effect. Structural markup should be used correctly to
communicate the roles of the elements of the content and presentation markup should be used
separately to control the presentation and layout.
- Transcript
- A "transcript" is a text representation of sounds in an audio clip or
an auditory track of a multimedia presentation. 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 visual 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 "transformation" is a process that changes a document or object into
another, equivalent, object according to a discrete set of rules. This
includes conversion tools, 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
- A "user agent" is software that retrieves and renders Web content.
User agents include browsers, plug-ins for a particular media type, and
some assistive technologies.
- View
- Authoring tools may render the same content in a variety of ways; each
rendering is called a "view." Some authoring tools will have several
different types of view, and some allow views of several documents at
once. 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: Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough,
Matthias Mueller-Prove, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Heather Swayne.
This document would not have been possible without the work of those who
contributed to The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult
the list of W3C Technical Reports at
http://www.w3.org/TR.
- [WOMBAT-CHECKLIST]
- An appendix to this document lists all of the checkpoints, sorted by
priority. The checklist is available at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/wombat/010523-checklist).
- [ATAG10-TECHS]
- "Techniques for Authoring
Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Treviranus, J. Richards, I.
Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile eds. The latest version is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS.
- [CONFORMANCE]
- "Conformance icons
for ATAG 1.0." Information about ATAG 1.0 conformance
icons is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ATAG10-Conformance.
- [CSS1]
- "CSS, level 1
Recommendation," B. Bos and H. Wium Lie, eds., 17 December 1996,
revised 11 January 1999. This CSS1 Recommendation is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111. The latest version of CSS1 is
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1. Note: CSS1
has been superseded by CSS2. Tools should implement the CSS2
cascade.
- [CSS2]
- "CSS, level 2
Recommendation," B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, C. Lilley, and I. Jacobs,
eds., 12 May 1998. This CSS2 Recommendation is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512. The latest version of CSS2 is
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2.
- [HTML4]
- "HTML 4.01
Recommendation," D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, eds., 24
December 1999. This HTML 4.01 Recommendation is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224. The latest version of HTML 4 is
available at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4.
- [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.
- [RDF10]
- "Resource
Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification," O.
Lassila, R. Swick, eds. The 22 February 1999 Recommendation is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. The latest version of RDF 1.0
is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax.
- [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.
- [UAAG10-TECHS]
- "Techniques for User
Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Gunderson, and I. Jacobs,
eds. The latest version of
Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/.
- [WCAG10]
- "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/WCAG10/.
- [WCAG10-TECHS]
- "Techniques for Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden,
and I. Jacobs, eds. The latest version of Techniques
for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/.
- [XML]
- "The Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0," T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M.
Sperberg-McQueen, eds., 10 February 1998. This XML 1.0 Recommendation is
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210. The latest version of the XML
specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.
