Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

Abstract

This specification provides guidelines for designing authoring tools that lower barriers to Web accessibility for people with disabilities. An authoring tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by providing an accessible authoring interface to authors with disabilities as well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of accessible Web content by all authors.

"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (ATAG 2.0) is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).

1.1 Scope

These guidelines cover a wide range of recommendations for assisting authoring tool software developers in making authoring tools, as well as the content that the authoring tools generate, more accessible to all potential Web content users and authors, especially people with disabilities .

These guidelines have been written to address the requirements of many different audiences, including, but not limited to: policy makers, technical administrators, and those who develop/manage content. Every attempt has been made to make this document as readable and usable as possible while still retaining the accuracy and clarity needed in a technical specification.

1.3 Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility

Authoring tools play a crucial role in achieving this principle because the design of the tool's authoring interface determines who can access the tool as a Web content author and the accessibility of the resulting Web content determines who can be an end-user of that Web content.

As an introduction to accessible authoring tool design, consider that the authors and end-users of Web content may be using the tool and its output in contexts that are very different from that which you may regard as typical. For example, authors and end-users may:

For more information, see "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" [PWD-USE-WEB].

Designing authoring tools for accessibility will have benefits for authors and end-users beyond those listed in these various disability-related contexts. For example, a person may have average hearing, but still require an equivalent alternative for audio information due to a noisy workplace. Similarly, a person working in an eyes-busy environment may require an audio alternative to information they cannot view.

1.4 Relationship with other guidelines and standards

ATAG 2.0 is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The documents in this series reflect an accessibility model in which format designers, Web content authors, and software developers have roles in ensuring that users with disabilities have access to the Web. The accessibility-related interests of these stakeholders intersect and complement each other as follows:

In particular, ATAG 2.0 has a special normative relationship with the WCAG because WCAG serves as the benchmark against which the accessibility of Web content produced by authoring tools can be judged. WCAG also serves as the benchmark for judging the accessibility of authoring interfaces that are Web-based.

In addition, while the W3C documents listed here provide excellent coverage of Web-based technologies, the W3C has not published any documents specifically covering the accessibility of software interfaces that are not Web-based. Instead of duplicating some of the work that exists outside of W3C in this area, the Working Group has chosen to normatively reference an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) document that is under development, entitled: "Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces" (referred to by its current version number "ISO-TS-16071"), as the benchmark for judging the accessibility of authoring interfaces that are not Web-based.

1.4.1 Relationship to "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)"

At the time of publication, version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation [WCAG10], and a second version of the guidelines is under development [WCAG20].

However, within the guidelines section of ATAG 2.0, references are made to WCAG without an associated version number. This has been done to allow developers to select, for the conformance profile, whichever version of WCAG is most appropriate for the circumstances of a given authoring tool. The Working Group does recommend considering the following factors when deciding on which WCAG version to use:

1.4.2 Relationship to "Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces (ISO TS 16071:2003)"

At the time of publication, the last stable version number for the ISO document is ISO TS 16071:2003[ISO-TS-16071]. However, it is expected that an additional ISO document based on ISO TS 16071:2003 will be released in 2006. As with the relationship to WCAG, ATAG 2.0 allows developers to have the option of substituting more recent versions of the ISO document into the conformance profile as they become available.

ISO TS/16071:2003 "Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces" provides guidance to application developers on designing software with the goal of making it accessible to people with a wide range of visual, hearing, motor and cognitive abilities. The document addresses software considerations for accessibility that complement general design for usability covered by ISO 9241-10 to ISO 9241-17 and ISO 13407. The document defines requirements that are relevant to operating systems, application or both. Three levels of accessibility impact are defined:

ATAG Guidelines refer to part 7.2 of the document that contains general guidelines where the following requirements refer to "Application": 7.2.1.1 (core), 7.2.1.2 (secondary), 7.2.2 (core), 7.2.3 (secondary), 7.2.4 (core), 7.2.5 (secondary), 7.2.9 (secondary), 7.2.10 (core), 7.2.11 (secondary), 7.2.12 (core) and 7.2.13 (secondary).

1.5 How this document is organized

The four guidelines that reflect steps toward the development of accessible authoring tools are:

The first guideline addresses the accessibility of the authoring interface of the tool. The other three guidelines address the means by which Web content comes to be produced by the tool. These three guidelines build upon each other, with guideline 2 establishing core requirements, guideline 3 establishing key author support functionality and guideline 4 specifying general considerations for how any functionality related to accessibility should be integrated with the rest of the tool. Each guideline includes:

Each checkpoint listed under a guideline is intended to be sufficiently specific to be verifiable, while being sufficiently general to allow developers the freedom to use the most appropriate strategies to satisfy it. Each checkpoint definition includes the following parts. Some parts are normative (i.e., relate to conformance); others are informative only:

2. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines

GUIDELINE 1: Make the authoring interface accessible

The design of all aspects of the authoring tool, including the authoring interface, installation procedure, documentation, and help files, must be accessible. Accessibility requirements must be followed when designing the authoring interface (Checkpoint 1.1) with special consideration paid to design features specific to authoring interfaces (Checkpoints 1.2-1.5).

1.1 Ensure that the authoring interface follows applicable software accessibility guidelines. [Authoring Interface Checkpoints Relative to WCAG or Authoring Interface Checkpoints Relative to ISO-TS-16071]

Rationale: If the authoring interface does not follow these guidelines, people with disabilities may not be able to author Web content.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 1.1

Success Criteria:

The authoring tool must satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
- (a) At least one full-featured Web-based authoring interface must always conform to WCAG.
- (b) At least one full-featured non-Web-based authoring interface must always conform to ISO-TS-16071.

1.2 Ensure that the authoring interface enables accessible editing of element and object properties. [Authoring Interface Checkpoints Relative to WCAG or Authoring Interface Checkpoints Relative to ISO-TS-16071]

Rationale: If some authors can edit or view element and object properties with an authoring tool, then all authors must be able to do the same.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 1.2

Success Criteria:

The authoring tool must satisfy at least one of the following conditions:
- (a) In Web-based authoring interfaces, at least one editing method for each editable property must always conform to WCAG.
- (b) In non-Web-based authoring interfaces, at least one editing method for each editable property must always conform to ISO-TS-16071.

1.3 Allow the display preferences of the authoring interface to be changed without affecting the document markup. [Priority 1]

Rationale: Authors may require a set of display preferences to view and control the document that is different from the display styles that they want to define for the published document (e.g. a particular text-background combination that differs from the published version).

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 1.3

Success Criteria:

All editing views must always include an option to display any available equivalent alternatives.
All editing views must always include an option to keep the display settings of the authoring interface from affecting the Web content being edited.

1.4 Ensure that the authoring interface enables the author to navigate the structure and perform structure-based edits. [Priority 2]

Rationale: It is often more efficient to navigate and edit via the structure in Web content.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 1.4

Success Criteria:

In any element hierarchy, the author must always be able, with a device-independent action, to move the editing focus from any element to any of the following elements, if they exist: the element immediately above (i.e. parent), the first element immediately below (i.e. child), the element immediately preceding at the same level (i.e. previous sibling), and the element immediately following at the same level (i.e. next sibling).
In any element hierarchy, the author must always be able, with a device-independent action, to select content and perform editing functions on any element along with any content, including subelements.

1.5 Ensure that the authoring interface allows the author to search within the editing views. [Priority 2]

Rationale: Search functions within the editing views facilitate author navigation of content as it is being authored by allowing the author to move focus quickly to arbitrary points in the content. Including the capability to search within text equivalents of rendered non-text content increases the efficiency of the search function.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 1.5

Success Criteria:

At least one comprehensive editing view must always include a search function that meets these conditions:
- (a) Provides search within any rendered Web content
- (b) Provides the option to search markup when the tool allows direct editing of markup (e.g. when authored "by hand").
- (c) Provides the option to search for text within all text equivalents of any non-text content.

GUIDELINE 2: Enable the production of accessible content

The creation of accessible content is dependent on the actions of the tool and the author. This guideline delineates the responsibilities that rest exclusively with the tool.

The first responsibility is to support formats that enable accessible content (Checkpoint 2.1). Web content produced by an authoring tool is most likely to be accessible, if the content is created in accordance with the requirements of WCAG and preserved in that state throughout the authoring process. The checkpoint requirements that support this include preserving accessible or unknown content (Checkpoint 2.2), automatically generating accessible content (Checkpoint 2.3), and including accessible pre-authored content (Checkpoint 2.4).

2.1 Support formats that enable the creation of Web content that conforms to WCAG. [Priority 1]

Rationale: Formats with published WCAG techniques documents facilitate the creation of accessible Web content.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 2.1

Success Criteria:

Any authoring tool that chooses the format of content for the author (i.e. a default format) must always choose formats for which there are published WCAG techniques documents for meeting each WCAG checkpoint.
Any authoring tool that allows authors to choose the format of content must always support at least one format for which there is a published WCAG techniques documents for meeting each WCAG checkpoint and always give prominence to those formats.

2.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all unrecognized markup and accessibility information during transformations and conversions. [Priority 2]

Rationale: Unrecognized markup may include recent technologies that have been added to enhance accessibility and should be preserved during conversions or transformations. Accessibility information should also be preserved.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 2.2

Success Criteria:

All transformations and conversions supported by the authoring tool must always meet both of the following conditions:
- (a) The author is notified before any unrecognized markup is permanently removed.
- (b) All accessibility information is handled according to at least one of the following:
  - (i) Be preserved in the target format such that the information can be "round-tripped" (i.e. converted or transformed back into its original form) by the same authoring tool.
  - (ii) Be preserved in some other way in the target format.
  - (iii) Be removed only after the author has been notified and the content has been preserved in its original format

2.3 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates content it conforms to WCAG. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

Rationale: Authoring tools that automatically generate content that does not conform to WCAG are a source of accessibility problems.

Note: WCAG includes a markup validity requirement.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 2.3

Success Criteria:

All markup and content that is automatically generated by the authoring tool (i.e. not authored "by hand") must always conform to WCAG.

2.4 Ensure that all pre-authored content for the tool conforms to WCAG. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

Rationale: Pre-authored content, such as templates, images, and videos, is often included with authoring tools for use by the author. When this content conforms to WCAG, it is more convenient for authors and more easily reused.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 2.4

Success Criteria:

Any Web content (e.g., templates, clip art, example pages, etc.) that is bundled with the authoring tool or preferentially licensed to the users of the authoring tool (i.e. provided for free or sold at a discount), must conform to WCAG when inserted.

GUIDELINE 3: Support the author in the production of accessible content

Actions may be taken at the author's initiative that may result in accessibility problems. The authoring tool should include features that provide support and guidance to the author in these situations, so that accessible authoring practices can be followed and accessible web content can be produced.

This support includes prompting and assisting the author to create accessible web content (Checkpoint 3.1), especially for information that cannot be generated automatically, checking for accessibility problems (Checkpoint 3.2), and assisting in the repair of accessibility problems (Checkpoint 3.3). In performing these functions, the authoring tool must avoid including automatically generated equivalent alternatives or previously authored equivalent alternatives without author consent (Checkpoint 3.4). The authoring tool may also provide automated means for managing equivalent alternatives (Checkpoint 3.5) and provide accessibility status summaries (Checkpoint 3.6).

Accessibility-related documentation provides support and guidance to the author. The documentation must accommodate the various levels of author familiarity with web content accessibility issues. The checkpoint requirements include documenting accessible content promoting features (Checkpoint 3.7) and ensuring that documentation demonstrates accessible authoring practices (Checkpoint 3.8) and provides instruction in creating accessible content (Checkpoint 3.9).

3.1 Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to WCAG. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

Rationale: The authoring tool should help to prevent the author from making decisions or omissions that cause accessibility problems. If accessibility problems are prevented, less effort is required to create content that conforms to WCAG. Different tool developers will accomplish this goal in ways that are appropriate to their products, processes, and authors.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.1

Success Criteria:

Every time that content is added or updated that requires accessibility information from the author in order to conform to WCAG, then the authoring tool must inform the author that this additional information is required (e.g. via input dialogs, interactive feedback, etc.).
Whenever the tool provides instructions to the author, either the instructions (if followed) must lead to the creation of Web content that conforms to WCAG, or the author must be informed that following the instructions would lead to Web content accessibility problems.

3.2 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

Rationale: Authors may not notice or be able to check for accessibility problems without assistance from the authoring tool.

Note: This checkpoint does not apply to authoring tools that constrain authoring choice to such a degree that it is not possible to create Web content that does not conform to WCAG.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.2

Success Criteria:

The authoring tool must always provide a check (automated check, semi-automated check or manual check) for each applicable requirement to conform to WCAG.
The authoring tool must always inform the author of any failed check results prior to completion of authoring.

3.3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

Rationale: Assistance by the authoring tool may simplify the task of repairing accessibility problems for some authors, and make it possible for others.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.3

Success Criteria:

The authoring tool must always provide a repair (automated repair, semi-automated repair or manual repair) for each applicable requirement to conform to WCAG.
For accessibility problems for which an authoring tool provides only manual repairs, the repair instructions must always be directly linked from the corresponding check.

3.4 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]

Rationale: Improperly generated equivalent alternatives can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.4

Success Criteria:

When the author inserts an unrecognized non-text object, the tool must never insert an automatically generated text equivalent (e.g. label generated from the file name).
When the author inserts a non-text object for which the tool has a previously authored equivalent alternatives (i.e. created by the author, tool designer, pre-authored content developer, etc.), but the function of the object is not known with certainty, the tool must always prompt the author to confirm insertion of the equivalent. However, where the function of the non-text object is known with certainty (e.g. "home button" on a navigation bar, etc.), the tool may automatically insert the equivalent.

3.5 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents. [Priority 3]

Rationale: Simplifying the initial production and later reuse of alternative equivalents will encourage authors to use them more frequently. In addition, such an alternative equivalent management system will facilitate meeting the requirements of Checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.5

Success Criteria:

The authoring tool must always keep a record of alternative equivalents that the author inserts for particular non-text objects in a way that allows the text equivalent to be offered back to the author for modification and re-use if the same non-text object is reused.

3.6 Provide the author with a summary of accessibility status. [Priority 3]

Rationale: This summary will help the author to improve the accessibility status of their work, keep track of problems, and monitor progress.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.6

Success Criteria:

The authoring tool must provide an option to view a list of all known accessibility problems (i.e. detected by automated check or identified by the author as part of a semi-automated or manual check) prior to completion of authoring.

3.7 Document all features of the tool that support the production of accessible content. [Priority 2]

Rationale: Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.g. prompts for alternates, code validators, accessibility checkers, etc.) authors may not find or use them.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.7

Success Criteria:

All features that play a role in creating accessible content must be documented in the help system.

3.8 Ensure that accessibility is modeled in all documentation and help, including examples. [Priority 3]

Rationale: If accessible authoring is integrated into instruction and guidance offered by the tool (e.g. documentation, help, tutorials, examples, and workflow processes), authors are more likely to follow accessible authoring as a common practice. This can also facilitate a better understanding of the reasoning behind and the consequences of authoring accessible content.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.8

Success Criteria:

All examples of markup and screenshots of the authoring interface that appear in the documentation and help must model accessible Web content.

3.9 Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible authoring. [Priority 3]

Rationale: Authors are more likely to use features that promote accessibility if they understand when and how to use them.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.9

Success Criteria:

A tutorial on accessible authoring for the specific authoring tool must be provided.

GUIDELINE 4: Promote and integrate accessibility solutions

This guideline requires that authoring tools must promote accessible authoring practices within the tool as well as smoothly integrate any functions added to meet the other requirements in this document. The checkpoint requirements for this section include ensuring that accessibility practices and features are given authoring interface priority (Checkpoint 4.1), clear availability (Checkpoint 4.2), workflow integration (Checkpoint 4.3), and sufficient configurability (Checkpoint 4.4).

Note: In addition to the normative requirements of this guideline, implementers should consider one other issue: the integration of accessibility features, such as prompting, checking and repair with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. This type of integration has the potential to:

produce a seamless product;
leverage the existing knowledge and skills of authors;
make authors more receptive to new authoring requirements; and
reduce the likelihood of confusion.

However, whenever new features are introduced into an authoring tool, striking the right design balance between the similarity with existing features and the provision of new functionality is often more of an art than a science. Moreover, the effectiveness of the solutions are perhaps better judged by the markeplace than by a set of stringent requirements.

4.1 Ensure that the most accessible option for an authoring task is given priority. [Priority 2]

Rationale: Authors are most likely to use the first and easiest option for a given authoring task.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.1

Success Criteria:

When the author has more than one markup implementation to choose from (e.g. the color of text can be changed with presentation markup or style sheets), those markup implementations that conform to WCAG must have equal or higher prominence than those markup implementations that do not meet the WCAG requirements.
Any choices of formats or authoring practices presented to the author (e.g., in menus, toolbars or dialogs) that will lead to the creation of content that does not conform to WCAG must be marked or labeled so that the author is aware of the consequences prior to making the choice.

4.2 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions, and documentation are always clearly available to the author. [Priority 2]

Rationale: If the features that support accessible authoring are difficult to find and activate, they are less likely to be used. Ideally, these features should be turned on by default.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.2

Success Criteria:

All accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation must meet the following conditions:
- (a) If they are continuously active, then they must always be enabled by default and if the author disables them (e.g. from a preferences screen), then the tool must always inform the author that this may introduce accessibility problems.
- (b) They must have at least the same prominence as the same type of function (i.e. prompting, checking, repair and documentation) related to other kinds of information (e.g. markup validity, program code syntax).

4.3. Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessible authoring practices. [Priority 2]

Rationale: Accessible design as an afterthought or separate process is much more onerous and therefore costly than when accessibility is considered from the start. If the authoring tool supports the author in considering accessibility before and/or during the authoring process it is more likely that accessible authoring practices will become a common practice. This is analogous to internationalization, which is much easier when it is considered from the beginning rather than handled last.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.3

Success Criteria:

Any feature that helps to sequence author actions (such as object insertion dialogs, design guides, templates, wizards, tutorials, or instruction text) must integrate relevant accessibility prompts. These prompts should occur before or at the time that the author is required to make the authoring decision related to the prompt.

4.4 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are configurable. [Priority 3]

Rationale: A configurable tool is more likely to be adaptable to the work habits of more authors.

Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 4.4

Success Criteria:

The configurability of all functions related to accessibility prompting, checking, repair, and documentation must match the configurability of other prompting, checking, repair, and documentation functions of the tool (respectively), in terms of both of the following:
- (a) the number of options controllable by the author, and
- (b) the degree to which each option can be controlled

Relative Priority Checkpoints (3 types): The importance of these checkpoints depends on the requirements of external documents. For each type of relative priority checkpoint, there are three levels of conformance, each with different applicable requirements (as listed).

3.2 Claiming Conformance:

The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity. As of the publication of this document, W3C does not act as an assuring party, but it may do so in the future, or it may establish recommendations for assuring parties.

Conformance claims may be published anywhere (e.g., on the Web or in paper documentation).

If usability tests are referenced, the details of the testing methods and results must also be published.

3.2.1 Claimants

3.2.2 Bundling Authoring Tools

A conformance claim may cover more than one authoring tool used together (e.g. a markup editor and an evaluation and repair tool or a multimedia editor with a custom plug-in), each of which may or may not conform to ATAG 2.0 by themselves, as long as:

3.2.3 Conformance Profiles

An authoring tool conforms to this document by satisfying the requirements identified by a conformance profile. A conformance profile includes the following assertions:

Sample Conformance Profile

3.2.4 Conformance Details

3.2.5 Conformance Icons

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 ATAG 1.0.

4. Glossary

This glossary is normative. However, some terms (or parts of explanations of terms) may not have an impact on conformance.

Accessibility Problem, Authoring Interface: An authoring interface accessibility problem is an aspect of an authoring interface that fails to meet one of the checkpoint success criteria in Guideline 1. For checkpoints 1.1 and 1.2, the severity of the problem is relative and is determined by reference to WCAG (for Web-based authoring interfaces) or by reference to ISO-TS-16071 (for non-Web-based authoring interfaces). For checkpoints 1.3 to 1.5, the severity of the problem is defined by the ATAG 2.0 priority level of the failed checkpoint.
Accessibility Problem, Web Content: A Web content accessibility problem is an aspect of Web content that fails to meet some requirement of WCAG. The severity of the problem is relative and is determined by reference to WCAG.
Accessible Web Content: Accessible Web content is Web content (e.g. output of an authoring tool) that is sufficiently free of Web content accessibility problems to be usable by end-users regardless of disability.
Accessible Authoring Interface: An accessible authoring interface is an authoring interface, Web-based or not, for an authoring tool that is sufficiently free of authoring interface accessibility problems to be usable by authors regardless of disability.
Accessibility Information: Accessibility information is any information that is necessary and sufficient for undertaking an accessible authoring practice. This information may include, but is not limited to, equivalent alternatives.
Accessible Authoring Practice: An accessible authoring practice is any authoring activity by the author or the authoring tool that leads to accessible Web content.
Alert: An alert makes the author aware of events or actions that require a response or reaction, but not necessarily immediately. The event or actions that trigger an alert may have serious consequences if ignored.
Attribute: An attribute, as used in the document, has the same sense as in SGML and XML [XML]. Some attributes are integral to the accessibility of content (e.g., the "alt", "title", and "longdesc" attributes in HTML).
Audio Description: Audio description (also called "Described Video") is an equivalent alternative that provides aural information about actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes in a video. Audio 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 audio description is either a pre-recorded human voice or a synthesized voice (recorded or automatically generated in real time). The audio description must be synchronized with the auditory track of a video presentation, usually during natural pauses in the auditory track.
Author: An author is a user of an authoring tool. This may include content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc.
Authored "By Hand": Authoring by hand is a situation in which the author specifies Web content at the lowest level (e.g. typing into a text editor).
Authoring Action: An authoring action is any action that the author takes using the authoring interface with the intention of adding or modifying Web content.
Authoring Interface: An authoring interface is the display and control mechanism available to an author to communicate with and operate the authoring tool software. ATAG 2.0 divides authoring tool interfaces into two categories: Web-Based (i.e. tools that are implemented using Web content and run within a user agent) and non-Web-Based (i.e. tools that run directly on a operating system such as Windows or Mac OS).
Authoring Interface, Full-Featured: A full-featured authoring interface is one that includes editing methods for all of the properties that are editable by an authoring tool.
Authoring Tool: See "Definition of authoring tool".
Captions: Captions are equivalent alternatives 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.
Checking, Accessibility: Accessibility checking (or "accessibility evaluation") is the process by which Web content is evaluated for Web content accessibility problems. ATAG 2.0 identifies three categories of checking: Automated (i.e. the authoring tool is able to check for problems automatically, with no human intervention required), Semi-Automated (i.e. the authoring tool is able to identify potential problems, but still requires human judgment by the author to make a final decision on whether an actual problem exists) and Manual (i.e. the authoring tool provides the author with instructions for detecting a problem, but does not automate the task of detecting the problem in any meaningful way).
Completion of Authoring: Completion of authoring is the point in time at which an authoring session ends and the author has no opportunity to make further changes. This may be when an author chooses to "save and exit", or "publish", or it may occur automatically at the end of a wizard, etc.
Configurability: Configurability refers to the adjustment of authoring tool settings, such as layout, rendering style, or other parameters that may affect the author's ability to use the authoring interface or editing methods. The author must then be able to store these adjustments, or author preferences, so they can
be used in all future sessions with the authoring tool.
Continuously Active: Continuously active features of an authoring tool are those that constantly examine an author's actions (e.g. a "check-spelling-as-you-type" feature). These contrast with features that must be activated and then operate only for a discrete period (e.g. a print feature)
Conversion: A conversion is a process that takes, as input, Web content in one format and produces, as output, Web content in another format (e.g.,"Save as HTML" functions).
Device-Independent Action: A device-independent action is not bound to only one type of input device.
Directly Linked: Two interface features are directly linked if there is a single author action on one of the features that causes the other to appear.
Display: Display refers to the presentation of information to the author, either visually or through a device such as a screen reader.
Document: A document is a structure of elements along with any associated content; the elements used are defined by a markup language.
Documentation: Documentation refers to any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be found electronically or otherwise and includes manuals, installation instructions, help mechanisms, sample workflows, and tutorials, etc.
Editable: A property is editable when the authoring tool allows its value to be changed. It is possible for a Web content property to be editable by one authoring tool, but not by another.
Editing Method: An editing method is a means by which an author is able to change the value of an editable property. Examples of editing methods include direct text entry, selection from a list, etc.
Editing View: An editing view is a view provided by the authoring tool that allows editing by the author.
Element: An element is any identifiable item 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.
End-User: An end-user is a person who interacts with Web content once it has been authored. In some cases, the author and end-user is the same person.
Equivalent Alternative: An equivalent alternative is content that is an acceptable substitute for other content that an end-user may not be able to access. An equivalent alternative fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content upon presentation to the end-user. Equivalent alternatives include text alternatives, which present a text version of the information conveyed in non-text content such as graphics and audio clips. The text alternative is considered accessible because it can be rendered in many different ways (e.g. as synthesized speech for individuals who have visual or learning disabilities, as Braille for individuals who are blind, as graphical text for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability). Equivalent alternatives also include "media alternatives", which present essential audio information visually (captions) and essential video information auditorily (audio descriptions).
Format: A format is a preset specification for organizing information.
Inform: To inform is to make the author aware of an event or situation using methods such as alert, prompt, sound, flash. These methods may be unintrusive (that is, presented without stopping the author's current activity), or intrusive (that is, interrupting the author's current activity).
Information Icon: An information icon is a graphic within the authoring interface that an author can select to receive additional information.
Informative: Informative ("non-normative") parts of this document are never required for conformance
Markup: Markup is a set of tags from a markup language that specify the characteristics of a document. Markup can be presentational (i.e., markup that encodes information about the visual layout of the content), structural (i.e., markup that encodes information about the structural role of elements of the content) or semantic (i.e., markup that encodes information about the intended meaning of the content).
Markup Language: A markup language is a syntax and/or set of rules used to manage markup (e.g. HTML [HTML4], SVG [SVG], or MathML [MATHML]).
Markup, Unrecognized: Unrecognized markup are elements, attributes, etc. that fall outside the DTD that an authoring tool is using to process author input.
Normative: Normative parts of this document are always required for conformance.
Object: An object is one or more elements that together are perceived as one entity.
Prominence: The prominence of a control in the authoring interface is a heuristic measure of the degree to which authors are likely to notice a control when operating the authoring tool. In this document, prominence refers to visual as well as keyboard-driven navigation. Some of the factors that contribute to the prominence of a control include: control size (large controls or controls surrounded by extra white space may appear to be conferred higher importance), control order (items that occur early in the "localized" reading order (e.g. left to right and top to bottom; right to left and top to bottom, etc.) are conferred higher importance), control grouping (grouping controls together can change the reading order and the related judgments of importance), advanced options (when the properties are explicitly or implicitly grouped into sets of basic and advanced properties, the basic properties may gain apparent importance), and highlighting (controls may be distinguished from others using icons, color, styling, etc.).
Prompt: In this document "prompt" is used as a mechanism initiated by the authoring tool designed to urge, suggest, and encourage.
Property: A property is a characteristic of an object, for example structural information (e.g., first class heading, list item) or presentation information (e.g., bold font, 14pt font).
Repairing, Accessibility: Accessibility repairing is the process by which Web content accessibility problems that have been identified within Web content are resolved. ATAG 2.0 identifies three categories of repair: Automated (i.e. the authoring tool is able to make repairs automatically, with no author input required), Semi-Automated (i.e. the authoring tool can provide some automated assistance to the author in performing corrections, but the author's input is still required before the repair can be complete) and Manual (i.e. the authoring tool provides the author with instructions for making the necessary correction, but does not automate the task in any substantial way).
Transcript: Transcripts are equivalent alternatives for the 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).
Techniques: Techniques are informative suggestions and examples for ways in which the success criteria of a checkpoint might be satisfied.
Transformation: A transformation is a process that takes, as input, an object of Web content in one format and produces, as output, a different object of Web content in the same format (e.g., a function that transforms tables into lists).
Typical Author: A person who possesses levels of authoring knowledge, authoring tool proficiency, and experience with accessibility authoring practices that are average for users of a particular authoring tool.
User Agent: A user agent is software that retrieves and renders Web content. This may include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs - including assistive technologies - that help in retrieving and rendering Web content.
View: A view is a rendering of Web content by an authoring tool.
Web Content: Content published on the Web.
Workflow: A workflow is a customary sequence of steps or tasks that are followed to produce a deliverable.

5. References

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

Note: In this document, bracketed labels such as "[HTML4]" link to the corresponding entries in this section. These labels are also identified as references through markup. Normative references are highlighted and identified through markup.

5.1 How to refer to this document

There are two recommended ways to refer to the "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (and to W3C documents in general):

References to a specific version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0." For example, use the "this version" URI to refer to the current document: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/.
References to the latest version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0." Use the "latest version" URI to refer to the most recently published document in the series: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.

In almost all cases, references (either by name or by link) should be to a specific version of the document. W3C will make every effort to make this document indefinitely available at its original address in its original form. The top of this document includes the relevant catalog metadata for specific references (including title, publication date, "this version" URI, editors' names, and copyright information).

An XHTML 1.0 [XHTML10] paragraph including a reference to this specific document might be written:

<p>
<cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122">
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0",</a></cite>
J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, J. Richards, M. May, eds.,
W3C Recommendation, 16 November 2004.
The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/">latest
version</a> of this document is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/.
</p>

For very general references to this document (where stability of content and anchors is not required), it may be appropriate to refer to the latest version of this document.

Other sections of this document explain how to build a conformance claim.

5.2 Normative references

A document appears in this section if at least one reference to the document appears in a checkpoint success criteria.

[ISO-TS-16071]: ISO TS 16071:2003 - Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces. ISO's Web site is http://www.iso.ch.
[WCAG10]: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds., 5 May 1999. This WCAG 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/.
[WCAG20]: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (Working Draft)", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and J. White, editors. The latest version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Note: This document is still a working draft.

5.3Informative references

[ATAG10]: "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/.
[ATAG10-TECHS]: "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility", J. Treviranus, J. Richards, I. Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile editors. The latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS.
[ATAG20-TECHS]: "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility 2.0", J. Treviranus, J. Richards, C. McCathieNevile, and M. May, editors. The latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20-TECHS.
[CSS1]: "CSS, level 1 Recommendation", B. Bos and H. Wium Lie, editors., 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 in particular.
[CSS2]: "CSS, level 2 Recommendation", B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, C. Lilley, and I. Jacobs, editors., 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, editors., 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, editors., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July 1999. This MathML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/1999/07/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.
[PWD-USE-WEB]: "How People With Disabilities Use the Web", J. Brewer, editor, 4 January 2001. The latest version of How People with Disabilities Use the Web is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/.
[RDF10]: "Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification", O. Lassila, R. Swick, editors. 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, editor. The latest version of the SVG specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG.
[UAAG10]: "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, E. Hansen, editors, 17 December 2002. This is a W3C Recommendation.
[UAAG10-TECHS]: "Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Gunderson and I. Jacobs, editors. The latest version of Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/.
[XAG]: "XML Accessibility Guidelines", D. Dardailler, S. B. Palmer, C. McCathieNevile, editors, 3 October 2002. This is a Working Group Draft.
[XHTML10]: " XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)", S. Pemberton, et al., authors., 26 January 2000, revised 1 August 2002. This XHTML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/. The latest version of XHTML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1.
[XML]: "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0", T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, editors., 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.

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

W3C Working Draft 22 November 2004

Abstract

Status of this document

Table of contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Scope

1.2 Definition of authoring tool

1.3 Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility

1.4 Relationship with other guidelines and standards

1.4.1 Relationship to "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)"

1.4.2 Relationship to "Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Guidance on accessibility for human-computer interfaces (ISO TS 16071:2003)"

1.5 How this document is organized

2. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines

GUIDELINE 1: Make the authoring interface accessible

GUIDELINE 2: Enable the production of accessible content

GUIDELINE 3: Support the author in the production of accessible content

GUIDELINE 4: Promote and integrate accessibility solutions

3. Conformance

3.1 Conformance Scheme

3.1.1 Conformance Levels

3.1.2 Checkpoint Priorities

3.2 Claiming Conformance:

3.2.1 Claimants

3.2.2 Bundling Authoring Tools

3.2.3 Conformance Profiles

Sample Conformance Profile

3.2.4 Conformance Details

3.2.5 Conformance Icons

4. Glossary

5. References

5.1 How to refer to this document

5.2 Normative references

5.3Informative references

6. Acknowledgments