This specification provides guidelines for designing Web content authoring
tools that are more accessible for people with disabilities. An authoring
tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by providing
an accessible user 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).
This section is informative, except where
noted.
You are reading the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version
2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting authoring
tool developers to make their tools (and the Web
content that the tools generate) more accessible to all people, especially
people with disabilities, who may potentially be either authors or end
users. These guidelines have been written to address the requirements
of many different audiences, including, but not limited to:
- authoring tool developers,
- authoring tool users (authors),
- authoring tool purchasers, and
- policy makers.
- technical administrators,
- and those who develop or manage content.
An attempt has been made to make this document as readable and usable as
possible for that diverse audience, while still retaining the accuracy and
clarity needed in a technical specification.
ATAG 2.0 is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The relationship between these documents
is explained in "Essential Components of Web Accessibility" [COMPONENTS].
This ATAG
2.0 document itself consists of:
- this introduction,
- information about conformance,
- the guidelines with normative success criteria,
- links to a separate non-normative document, entitled "Techniques
for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" [ATAG20-TECHS] (the "Techniques
document" from here on), that provide sufficient and advisory techniques
for how each success criteria might be satisfied, (Note: These techniques
are informative examples only, and other strategies may be used or required
to satisfy the checkpoints),
- appendices containing references, a glossary,
a checklist and a document comparing
the checkpoints in ATAG 1.0 to those in this document (ATAG 2.0).
Definition of authoring
tool
The following categories are an informative illustration of the range of
tools covered by ATAG 2.0. The categories are used primarily in the Techniques
document [ATAG20-TECHS] to
mark examples that may be of interest to developers of particular types of
tools. Note: Many authoring tools include authoring functions from more than
one category (e.g., an HTML editor with both code-level and WYSIWYG editing
views):
-
Code-level
Authoring Functions: Authors have full control over all aspects
of the resulting Web content that have bearing on the final outcome.
This covers, but is not limited to plain text editing, as this category
also covers the manipulation of symbolic representations that are sufficiently
fine-grained to allow authors the same freedom of control as plain
text editing (e.g., graphical tag placeholders).
Examples: text
editors, text editors enhanced with graphical tags, some wikis, etc.
-
-
Object
Oriented Authoring Functions: Authors have control over functional
abstractions of the low level aspects of the resulting Web content.
Examples: timelines,
waveforms, vector-based graphic editors, objects which represent web
implementations for graphical widgets (e.g., menu widgets) etc.
-
Indirect
Authoring Functions: Authors have control over only high-level
parameters related to the automated production of the resulting Web
content. This may include interfaces that assist the author to create
and organize Web content without authors having control over the markup,
structure, or programming implementation.
Examples: content
management systems, site building wizards, site management tools, courseware,
blogging tools, content aggregators, conversion tools, model-based
authoring tools, etc.
@@JR: what if we changed
this to "Dialog-level" editing? Guided?@@
The guiding principle of ATAG 2.0 is that:
Everyone should have the ability to create and access Web content.
Authoring tools play a crucial role in achieving this principle because
the accessibility of the tool's authoring
tool user interface determines who can access the tool as a Web content author (see Part
A of the guidelines) and the accessibility of the resulting Web
content determines who can be an end
user of that Web content (see Part
B of the guidelines).
The approach taken to the production of accessible content in these guidelines
is one of enabling, supporting, and guiding the author. In general, the Working
Group does not believe that enforcing particular author behavior through
overly restrictive mechanisms is a workable solution.
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 may be regarded as typical.
For example, authors and end users may
- not be able to see, hear, move, or be able to process some types of information
easily or at all;
- have difficulty reading or comprehending text;
- not have or be able to use a keyboard or mouse;
- have a text-only display, or a small screen.
For more information, see "How People with Disabilities Use the Web" [PWD-USE-WEB].
In addition, following the guidelines provides 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 captions
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.
Also consider that authors may not be familiar with the specific needs of
people with disabilities and will require support from the authoring tool
to fill the knowledge gap. @@work this in a bit
better@@
Relationship
to the 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].
Note that the two versions have somewhat different Conformance Models.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is the
W3C-WAI Recommendation that defines requirements for making Web content accessible
to a wide range of people with disabilities. ATAG 2.0 includes a Web
Content Accessibility "Benchmark" section that refers to WCAG
as the guideline for judging the accessibility of Web
content (see the term "Accessible
Web Content") and any Web-based authoring tool user interface functionality
(see the term "Accessible
Authoring Tool User Interface").
Note that the references to WCAG are made without an associated
version number. This has been done to allow developers to select,
and record in the conformance profile, whichever
version of WCAG is most appropriate for the circumstances of a given authoring
tool. Consider the following when deciding which
WCAG version to use:
- The latest version of WCAG will be the most accurate with respect to
state-of-the-art technologies and accessibility best practices. Older versions
of WCAG may include requirements that are no longer necessary, due to advances
in user agent technology.
- The versions of WCAG differ with respect to the formats
for which there are published WCAG technique documents. This is important
because ATAG 2.0 requires published Web Content
Accessibility "Benchmark" documents, which may be based on
WCAG technique documents, if they are available.
- The versions of WCAG differ in the degree to which they match the legislation
and policies that drive author requirements. Many authors will be seeking
to use authoring tools to create Web content that meets legislation, corporate
policies, etc. It is likely that as WCAG progresses, so too will legislation
and policies, albeit at an uneven pace. Authoring tool developers may,
therefore, consider supporting both versions of WCAG in
the interim.
ATAG 2.0 Guidelines
This section is normative.
How the guidelines
are organized
The guidelines are divided into two parts, each reflecting a key aspect
of accessible authoring tools. Part A includes
guidelines and associated checkpoints related to ensuring accessibility
of the authoring
tool user interface. Part B contains
guidelines and checkpoints related to ensuring support for creation of accessible
Web content by the tool. The guidelines in both parts include the following:
- The guideline number.
- The guideline title.
- An explanation of the guideline.
- A list of checkpoints for the guideline.
Each checkpoint listed under a guideline is intended to be specific enough
to be verifiable, while still allowing developers the freedom to meet the
checkpoint in a way that is suitable for their own authoring tools. Each
checkpoint definition includes the following parts. Some parts are normative (i.e.,
relate to conformance), while others are informative only:
PART A:
Make the authoring tool user interface accessible
The checkpoints in Part A are intended to increase the accessibility of
the authoring experience for authors with disabilities. For this reason,
the requirements are narrowly focused on the accessibility of the user
interface that authors uses to operate
the tool. The accessibility of the Web
content produced is addressed in Part
B.
Note for tools with previews: The requirement in this
section apply to all parts of the authoring tool user interface except for
the content view of any built-in preview features (see Checkpoint
A.2.9 for requirements on previews). In general, the configuration
of the preview mode is not defined by the configuration of the editing
views.
PART
B: Support the production of accessible content
The checkpoints in Part B are intended to increase the accessibility of
the Web content produced
by any author to end
users with disabilities. While the requirements in this part do not
deal with the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface, it should
be noted that any of the features (e.g., checker, tutorial) added to meet
Part B must also meet the user interface accessibility requirements of Part
A.
GUIDELINE
B.1: 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.
- B.1.1 Support content
types that enable the creation of content that is accessible conforms
to WCAG. [Priority 1]
-
Rationale: Content
types with published content type-specific WCAG benchmark documents
facilitate the creation of Web content that can be assessed for accessibility
with WCAG.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.1.1
- B.1.2
Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility
information during transformations and conversions. [Priority
1]
-
Rationale: Accessibility
information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility
across transformations and conversions.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.1.2
- B.1.3
Ensure that authors are
notified before content is
automatically removed. [Priority 2]
-
Rationale: Automatically
removing markup can cause the unintentional loss of structural information.
Even unrecognized markup may have accessibility value, since it may
include recent technologies that have been added to enhance accessibility.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.1.3
Success Criteria:
- An option to notify authors prior
to any automatic removal of content must be
provided.
- B.1.4 Ensure
that automatically generated content is
accessible conforms to WCAG. [Priority 1 to ensure a minimum
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 2 to ensure an enhanced
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 3 to ensure additional
Web content accessibility enhancements]
-
Rationale: Authoring
tools that automatically generate content that does not conform to
WCAG are a source of accessibility problems.
Note: If accessibility
information is required from authors during
the automatic generation process, Checkpoint
B.2.1 applies.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.1.4
Success Criteria:
- Any content that
is generated by the authoring tool must meet the requirements
in the Web content accessibility
benchmark, unless the content is the direct result of input
by authors (e.g., typing markup within code-level
editing views, manual selection of color combinations in WYSIWYG
editing views)
All content that
is automatically generated by the authoring tool (i.e., not authored "by
hand") must conform to WCAG.
- @@JR: should we say something here
about complete vs. incomplete content?@@
- B.1.5
Ensure that all pre-authored content for
the authoring tool is accessible conforms
to WCAG. [Priority 1 to ensure a minimum
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 2 to ensure an enhanced
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 3 to ensure additional
Web content accessibility enhancements]
-
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.
Note: If accessibility
information is required from authors during
use, Checkpoint B.2.1 applies.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.1.5
Success Criteria:
- Any content (e.g., templates,
clip art, graphical widgets) that becomes
legally available by authors upon purchase of the authoring
tool 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 meet
the requirements in the Web content
accessibility benchmark when used by the author. @@JR:
Maybe this should be changed to make it a bit more clear who
needs to be offering the discount@@
GUIDELINE B.2:
Support authors 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 authors in
these situations, so that accessible
authoring practices can be followed and accessible
web content can be produced.
- B.2.1 Prompt and
assist the authors to
create accessible content that
conforms to WCAG. [Priority 1 to prompt for a minimum
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 2 to prompt for
an enhanced level of Web content
accessibility, Priority 3 to prompt for additional
Web content accessibility enhancements]
-
Rationale: The
authoring tool should help to prevent authors from
making decisions or omissions that cause accessibility problems.
If Web content 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 B.2.1
Success Criteria:
- An option to notify authors when content is
added or updated that requires accessibility
information from authors (e.g., via
a dialog box) to meet the requirements
in the Web content accessibility benchmark must be
provided.
- If an authoring tool presents authors with content
type choices or authoring options that will always lead
to the creation of content that
does not meet the requirements in
the Web content accessibility benchmark (e.g.,
a strobe effect that will violate the general
flash or red flash threshold), then a
warning must be displayed so that authors
are aware of the consequences prior to making the choice. @@JR:
moved from B.3.1@@
- Any content
authoring instructions provided to the author by
the authoring tool must meet one of
the following:
- (a) be accessible, such that
content created according to the instructions would meet
the requirements in the Web content
accessibility benchmark, or
- (b) be inaccessible, but include
a prominent explanation that Web content accessibility
problems will result from following the instructions.
- B.2.2 Assist
authors in checking for and
inform the author of accessibility
problems. [Priority 1 to check for a minimum
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 2 to check for an enhanced
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 3 to check for additional
Web content accessibility enhancements]
-
Rationale: Authors
may not notice or be able to check for accessibility problems without
assistance from the authoring tool.
Note: While automated
checking and more advanced implementations of semi-automated
checking may improve the authoring experience, this is not
required to meet the success criteria for this checkpoint.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.2.2
Success Criteria:
- An individual check must be associated with each requirement
in the Web content
accessibility benchmark. A
blanket question such as "does the page meet all of the
requirements?" is not acceptable .
- For checks that are associated with a type of element (e.g.,
img),
each instance of the element must be individually identified
as a potential accessibility
problem.
- For checks that are relevant
across multiple elements (e.g., consistent navigation) or apply
to most or all elements (e.g., background color contrast, reading
level), the entire span of applicable elements must be
identified as a potential accessibility problem,
up to the entire content if
applicable.
- For checks that required author judgement to
determine if a potential accessibility
problem is correctly identified, the message to authors must be
tailored to that potential accessibility problem (i.e., to that
requirement in the context of that element or
span of elements).
- Checking must be
presented as an option to authors prior
to the completion
of authoring.
Note: This checkpoint does not apply to authoring
tools that constrain authoring choice to such a degree that it
is not possible to create content that
does not conform to WCAG.
- B.2.3
Assist authors in repairing accessibility
problems. [Priority 1 to repair to a minimum
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 2 to repair to an enhanced
level of Web content accessibility, Priority 3 to repair additional
Web content accessibility enhancements]
-
Rationale: Assistance
by the authoring tool may simplify the task of repairing accessibility
problems for some authors, and make it possible for others.
Note: While automated
repair and semi-automated
repair may improve the authoring experience, providing repair
instructions is sufficient to meet the success criteria for this
checkpoint.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.2.3
- B.2.4
Assist authors to
ensure that equivalent
alternatives for non-text
objects are accurate and fit the context. [Priority
1]
-
Rationale: Improperly
generated equivalent alternatives can create accessibility problems
and interfere with accessibility checking.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.2.4
Success Criteria:
- If text
alternatives for non-text
objects are offered to authors,
then the source of the alternatives for each object must be at
least one of the following:
- Authors must have
the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject equivalent
alternatives.
Note: Text
alternatives should not be generated from unreliable sources. File
names are generally not acceptable, although in some cases they
will be (e.g., if they store alternatives previously entered by authors).
- B.2.5
Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing equivalent
alternatives. [Priority 3]
-
Rationale: Simplifying
the initial production and later reuse of equivalent alternatives
will encourage authors to use them more frequently. In addition,
such an alternative equivalent management system will facilitate
meeting the requirements of Checkpoints B.2.1, B.2.2, B.2.3 and B.2.4.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.2.5
- B.2.6
Provide authors with
a summary of accessibility status. [Priority 3] @@P2 suggested
by reviewers@@
-
Rationale: This
summary will help authors to improve the accessibility status of
their work, keep track of problems, and monitor progress.
Techniques: Implementation
Techniques for Checkpoint B.2.6
- B.2.7
Provide authors with
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 B.2.7
Success Criteria:
- A tutorial on
the accessible authoring process that is specific to the
authoring tool must be
provided.
Conformance
This section is normative.
Conformance means that the authoring
tool satisfies the checkpoint success criteria defined in the guidelines section.
This section outlines the conformance scheme used throughout this document.
Each
checkpoints is assigned one of three (3) priority levels.
- Priority 1 checkpoints:
- Priority 2 checkpoints:
- Priority 3 checkpoints:
(If a checkpoint success criterion is not applicable
to an authoring tool, then that success criterion is treated as met for
conformance purposes.)
Web
Content Accessibility "Benchmark"
The purpose of the Web Content Accessibility "Benchmark" is
to precisely specify the evaluator's interpretation of what "accessible
Web content" means with respect to the particular content type(s) that
are produced by the authoring tool or are used to implement Web-based user
interface functionality of the authoring tool (if applicable). This precise
interpretation helps the evaluator to judge the completeness and consistency
of accessibility-related authoring tool functions that must interoperate,
such as accessibility prompting, evaluation, and repair functions. In addition,
because the Benchmark must be made public, it allows claims to be more fully
checked for accuracy.
What does a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark include?
A Benchmark document must be publicly published on the
Web (the URI will appear in the conformance
claim) and must include:
- The name and version of the content type(s) covered
by the Benchmark document (e.g., "HTML 4.01" or "SVG 1.0
and PNG images") and optionally the URI of the specification(s). The
version may be a defined range.
- The version and URI of the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines that is being used as a basis for the Benchmark (e.g., "WCAG
2.0 Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/") (See Note
on other Accessibility Standards).
- The target level of the Benchmark. This is
the WCAG conformance level that would be met by Web content that implemented
all of the techniques in the Benchmark. There are three (3) possible levels:
- Minimum
level of Web content accessibility: e.g., Conforming
to WCAG 2.0 Level A
- Enhanced
level of Web content accessibility: e.g., Conforming
to WCAG 2.0, Level Double-A (AA)
- Additional
Web content accessibility enhancements: e.g.,
Conforming to WCAG 2.0, Level Triple A (AAA)
- The Benchmark techniques:
For each normative requirement of WCAG at the target level, one of the
following must be provided:
- at least one technique for meeting the normative requirement (e.g.,
for a minimum level Benchmark, a technique for each Level 1 WCAG 2.0
success criteria), or
- an explanation of why that normative requirement is not applicable
to the content type(s) in question (e.g., for a text-only format, normative
requirements related to images would be considered not applicable)
Note
on other Accessibility Standards: ATAG 2.0 addresses how authoring
tools can be designed to encourage authors to create accessible content.
While the Working Group highly recommends the W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines due to the quality of the document and the process under which
it was developed, other Recommendations, Standards, and Regulations with
the same goal exist in jurisdictions and organizations around the world. @@JR:
???@@
Is a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark normative?
Yes. Although it may be based on informative documents,
such as WCAG Techniques, ATAG 2.0 considers that a Benchmark becomes normative
for a particular conformance claim when that claim includes
a reference to the URI of that Benchmark.
Who can create a Web Content Accessibility Benchmark?
A Benchmark can be created by any any person, company or
other organization. However, in the interest of being able to directly compare
the evaluations of authoring tools that produce the same content types, the
Working Group suggests checking to see if a Benchmark document has already
been published, before creating a new one.
What resources are available to help create a Web Content
Accessibility Benchmark?
The Working Group suggests the following:
- WCAG Guideline documents:
- WCAG Technique documents:
- Understanding WCAG documents:
- W3C Access Note series:
- Content type specifications
Conformance Levels
Authoring tools may claim full conformance
to ATAG 2.0 at one of three conformance levels. The level achieved depends
on the priority level of the checkpoints for
which the authoring tool has satisfied the success criteria. The full conformance
levels are:
- ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "A"
The authoring tool has satisfied the success criteria for all of
the Priority 1 checkpoints.
- ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Double-A" means
that t
The authoring tool has satisfied the success criteria for all of
the Priority 1 and Priority
2 checkpoints.
- ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Triple-A" means
that t
The authoring tool has satisfied the success criteria for all of
the checkpoints.
In addition, a Partial Conformance claim option is available
in cases where an authoring tool has satisfied the success criteria in one
of the two Parts of the document (i.e. "Part A: Make the authoring tool
user interface accessible" and "Part B: Support the production
of accessible content") to a higher level than in the other. The partial
conformance levels are:
- ATAG 2.0 Partial Conformance Level ("A"|"Double-A"|"Triple-A"):
Authoring Tool User Interface
The authoring tool has satisfied all of the relevant success criteria
for the checkpoints in Part A.
- ATAG 2.0 Partial Conformance Level ("A"|"Double-A"|"Triple-A"):
Content Production"
The authoring tool has satisfied all of the relevant success criteria
for the checkpoints in Part B.
Note: The Working Group remains committed
to the guiding principle that: Everyone should have the ability to create
and access Web content. Therefore, it is recommended that Partial Conformance
be claimed as a step towards full conformance.
Conformance
Claims
A conformance claim is an assertion by a claimant that an authoring
tool has satisfied the requirements of a chosen ATAG 2.0 conformance
profile.
Conditions on Conformance
Claims
- At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the
Web as a document meeting a minimumum
level of Web content accessibility. A suggested metadata description
for this document is "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".
- Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., in marketing
materials), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance
claim must be included.
- The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has
reviewed the claim or assured its validity.
- Claimants may be anyone (e.g., developers, journalists, other third parties).
- Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims and
keeping claims up to date.
- Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version
of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation that is available.
Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
- The date of the claim.
- The guidelines title/version: "Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0"
- The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information
to specify the version (e.g., vendor name, version number, minor release
number, required patches or updates, natural language of the user interface
or documentation).
- The version information may refer to a range of tools (e.g., "this
claim refers to version 6.x").
- If the authoring tool is a collection
of software component (e.g., a markup editor, an image editor,
and a validation tool), then information must be provided separately
for each component, although the conformance claim will treat them
as a whole.
- The conformance
profile, which must include the following:
- (a) The ATAG 2.0 conformance level that
has been satisfied (choose one of: "A", "Double-A", "Triple-A").
- (b) A list of the content type(s) produced
by the authoring tool that are covered by the claim.
- The list must include at least one content typefor the conformance
claim to be valid.
- When content types are typically produced together (e.g.,
HTML and JavaScript), they can be listed separately or together
in the list.
- Each of the content types in this list must include the URI
of a Web content accessibility benchmark for
that content type.
- (c) A list of any other content type(s) produced by the authoring
tool that are not covered by the claim.
- (d) The platform(s) upon
which all or part (e.g., help system) of the authoring tool was evaluated
- For user agent platform(s), provide:
- The name and version information of the user
agent(s).
- The version and URI of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
document used to evaluate the accessibility of the Web-based
functionality.
- For platforms that are not user
agents, provide:
- The name and version information of the platform(s) (e.g.,
operating system, Java virtual machine, etc.).
- The name and version of the accessibility platform architecture(s)
employed.
- A description of how the normative ATAG 2.0 success criteria were met
for each of the checkpoints that are required for the conformance level
specified by the conformance profile. In
some cases, this includes describing how the Web
content accessibility benchmark techniques were implemented.
"Progress
Towards Conformance" Statement
Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular
ATAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress
towards conformance. This statement would be the same as a conformance
claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2.0 conformance
level that is being progressed towards, rather than one already satisfied,
and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. The author of a "Progress
Towards Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy
of their statement. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines
for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement.
Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary
This glossary is normative.
Some definitions may differ from those in other WAI documents. The definitions
here serve the goals of this Recommendation.
- accessibility
platform architecture
- A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered
to communicate with assistive technologies. Examples include MSAA and IAccessible2
for Windows applications, Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome, Java
Access for Java applications.@@JR: def'n may
need work@@
- accessibility
problem, authoring tool user interface
- An aspect of
an authoring
tool user interface that fails to meet one of the checkpoint success
criteria in Part A. The severity of
a given problem is reflected in the priority of the checkpoint.
- accessibility
problem, Web content
- An aspect of Web
content that fails to meet some accessibility
requirement. In ATAG 2.0, the severity of a given problem is relative
and is determined by the Web content accessibility
benchmark.
- accessible
Web content
- Web content (e.g.,
output of an authoring tool) that is free of accessibility
problems. Usually this term is used to refer to a particular
level of accessibility (e.g., "meets
a minimum level of Web content accessibility").
- accessible
authoring tool user interface
- An authoring
tool user interface that meets the success criteria in Part
A. The level of accessibility is
determined by the priority of the satisfied checkpoints.
- accessibility
information
- Any information
that is necessary and sufficient for undertaking an accessible
authoring practice. For a particular content
type, this information may include, but is not limited to, equivalent
alternatives.
- accessible
authoring practice
- A technique for
creating Web content that avoids or corrects a Web
content accessibility problem. Accessible authoring practices may be
be undertaken by either authors or
the authoring tool and may or may not require accessibility
information,
- accessible
content support features
- All features of the tool that play a role in satisfying the success criteria
for checkpoints B.2.1, B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.5, B.2.6 and B.2.7.
- alert
- A user interface mechanism that makes authors aware
of events or actions that require a response. The author response is not
necessarily required immediately. The events or actions that trigger an
alert may have serious consequences if ignored.
- audio
description (also called "Described Video")
- An equivalent
alternative that provides auditory 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 with descriptions occurring during natural pauses in the auditory
track.
- author
- The user of an authoring tool. This
may include content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers,
etc.
- authoring"by
hand"
- When the author specifies Web
content at the level to be interpreted by the user agent (e.g., typing
markup into a text editor, choosing an element by name from a list).
- authoring
action
- Any action that the author takes
using the authoring
tool user interface with the intention of adding or modifying Web
content (e.g., typing text, inserting an element, launching a wizard;
but not resizing windows, viewing help, etc.).
- authoring
outcome
- A state of the Web
content being authored (e.g., bold text, resized image) that
can be achieved by applying one or more authoring practices.
There may be several alternative authoring practices that are able
to satisfy the same authoring outcome.
- authoring
tool user interface, non-Web-based
- Any part of an authoring
tool user interface that runs directly on application execution environments
other than user
agents (e.g., Windows, MacOS, Java Virtual Machine, etc.).
- authoring
tool user interface, Web-based
- Any part of an authoring
tool user interface that is implemented using a content
type and rendered on a user
agent. Since Web-Based tools may be implemented in many of the same
content types they are used to edit, the distinction between content
display and user interface "chrome" may
be less clear than with non-Web-Based tools.
- authoring
tool user interface
- The
display and control mechanism that authors use
to communicate with and operate the authoring tool software. Authoring
tool user interfaces may be non-Web-Based or Web-based (e.g.,
on-line content management system) or a combination of both (e.g., non-Web-based
markup editor with on-line help pages). Authoring tool user interfaces
can usefully be considered in two parts:
- Content
display: The tool's rendering of the content being edited
in an editing
view or previewed in a preview.
Examples include:
- marked-up content in a code-level editing
view,
- rendered text, images, tables, form controls, etc. in a WYSIWYG editing
view,
- vector graphics with editing "handles" in an object-oriented editing
view,
- text entries and setting values in an indirect editing
view,
- rendered text, images, tables, form controls, etc. in a preview.
- User
interface "chrome": The parts of the
user interface that surround, underlie or super-impose upon the content
display:
- controls that surround the content display include menus, button
bars, palettes, help windows, cursors, dialog boxes, etc.,
- controls that underlie the content display (i.e. implementing
non-rendered part of editing views)
include text areas for a code-level editing
view, text boxes in an indirect editing
view, etc.,
- controls that are super-imposed upon content displays include
context menus on content, underlining problematic content, etc.
- authoring tool
- See "Definition
of authoring tool".
- available
programmatically
- Capable of providing information to other software
(including assistive technologies) by following relevant accessibility
platform architectures (e.g., MSAA, Java Access) or, if the available accessibility
platform architectures are insufficient, following some other published
interoperability mechanism (custom-created by the developer, if necessary).
- captions
- Equivalent
alternatives that consist of a text transcript of the auditory track
of a movie (or other video presentation) and that is synchronized with
the video and auditory tracks. Captions are generally rendered graphically.
They benefit people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, and anyone who cannot
hear the audio (for example, someone in a noisy environment).
- checking, accessibility (also
called "accessibility evaluation")
- The process by which Web
content is evaluated for Web
content accessibility problems. ATAG 2.0 identifies three types of
checking, based on increasing levels of automation:
- manual
checking in which the authoring tool only provides instructions
for authors to follow in order to identify problems;
- semi-automated
checking in which 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
- automated
checking in which the authoring tool is able to check for problems
automatically, with no human intervention required. An authoring tool may
support any combination of checking types.
- collection
of software components
- Any software products used together (e.g., base tool
and plug-in) or separately (e.g., markup editor,
image editor, and validation tool), regardless of whether there has been
any formal collaboration between the developers of the products.
- completion
of authoring
- 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.
- content type
- A data format, programming or markup language that
is intended to be retrieved and rendered by a user
agent (e.g., HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, JavaScript or combinations). The
usage of the term is a subset of WCAG 2.0's [WCAG20] current
usage of the term "Technology".
- conversion
- A process that takes as input, content in one content
type and produces as output, content in another content
type (e.g., "Save as HTML" functions).
- display
settings, audio
- The characteristcs of
audio output of music, sounds and speech and include volume, speech voices,
voice speed, and voice emphasis.
- display
settings, visual
- The characteristcs of
the on-screen rendering of text and graphics and include fonts, sizes,
colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.
- document
- A structure of elements along
with any associated content; the elements used are defined by a markup language.
- documentation
- Any information that supports the use of an authoring
tool. This information may be found electronically or otherwise and includes
help, manuals, installation instructions, sample workflows,
and tutorials, etc.
- editing
view
- A view provided
by the authoring tool that allows editing of
content by the author (e.g., code-level editing
view, WYSIWYG editing view).
- element
- A pair of
tags and their content, or an "empty" tag - one that requires
no closing tag or content (used in the same sense as in HTML [HTML4] and XML)
- end user
- A person who interacts with Web
content once it has been authored. In some cases, the author and
the end user are the same person.
- equivalent
alternative
- Content that is an acceptable substitute
for other content that a person may not be able to access. An equivalent
alternative fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original
content upon presentation. Equivalent alternatives include text alternatives
and synchronized alternatives.
- Text
alternatives present a text version of the information conveyed
in non-text objects 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).
- Accessible
alternatives to multimedia present the same information
as is conveyed in the multimedia via
accessible text, navigation, forms, etc.
- Synchronized
alternatives present essential audio information visually (i.e., captions)
and essential video information in an auditory manner (i.e., audio
descriptions).
- freeform
drawing
- Drawing actions that use the mouse or stylus in a continuous fashion
(e.g., a paintbrush feature). This does not cover moving or resizing object-based
graphics (including moving or resizing an object that is a previously authored
freeform graphic).
- general
flash or red flash
- General flash threshold (Based on Wisconsin Computer
Equivalence Algorithm for Flash Pattern Analysis (FPA)): A sequence
of flashes or rapidly changing image sequences where all three of the
following occur:
- the combined area of flashes occurring concurrently (but not necessarily
contiguously) occupies more than one quarter of any 341 x 256 pixel
rectangle anywhere on the displayed screen area when the content is
viewed at 1024 x 768 pixels;
- there are more than three flashes within any one-second period; and
- the flashing is below 50 Hz.
- (Note: For the general flash threshold, a flash is defined
as a pair of opposing changes in brightness of 10% or more of full scale
white brightness, where brightness is calculated as 0.2126 * ((R / FS)
^ 2.2) + 0.7152 * ((G / FS) ^ 2.2) + 0.0722 * ((B / FS) ^ 2.2). R, G, and
B are the red, green, and blue RGB values of the color; FS is the maximum
possible full scale RGB value for R, G, and B (255 for eight bit color
channels); and the "^" character is the exponentiation operator.
An "opposing change" is an increase followed by a decrease, or
a decrease followed by an increase. This applies only when the brightness
of the darker image is below .80 of full scale white brightness.
- Red flash threshold (Note: Based on Wisconsin Computer
Equivalence Algorithm for Flash Pattern Analysis (FPA)): A transition
to or from a saturated red where both of the following occur:
- The combined area of flashes occurring concurrently occupies more
than one quarter of any 341 x 256 pixel rectangle anywhere on the displayed
screen area when the content is viewed at 1024 x 768 pixels.
- There are more than three flashes within any one-second period.
- The flashing is below 50 Hz.
- inform
- To make the author aware
of an event or situation using methods such as alert, prompt,
sound, flash. These methods may be unintrusive (i.e., presented without
stopping the author's current activity) or intrusive (i.e., interrupting
the author's current activity).
- informative
- "Non-normative" parts
of this document that are never
required for conformance.
- keyboard
interface
- Interface used by software to obtain keystroke input.
- Note 1: Allows users to provide keystroke input to programs
even if the native technology does not contain a keyboard (e.g., a touch
screen PDA has a keyboard interface built into its operating system as
well as a connector for external keyboards. Applications on the PDA can
use the interface to obtain keyboard input either from an external keyboard
or from other applications that provide simulated keyboard output, such
as handwriting interpreters or speech to text applications with "keyboard
emulation" functionality).
- Note 2: Operation of the application (or parts of the
application) through a keyboard operated mouse emulator, such as MouseKeys,
does not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because operation
of the program is through its pointing device interface - not through its
keyboard interface.
- markup
- 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 syntax and/or set of rules to manage markup (e.g.,
HTML [HTML4], SVG [SVG], or MathML [MATHML]).
- multimedia
- Audio or video synchronized with another type of media and/or with time-based
interactive components.
- non-text
objects
- Content objects that are not represented by text character(s) when rendered
in a user agent (e.g., images, audio, video).
- normative
- Parts of this document that are always required for conformance.
- platform
- The software environment within which the authoring tool
operates. For functionality that is not Web-based, this will be an operating
system (e.g., Windows, MacOS, Linux), virtual machine (e.g., JVM) or a
higher level GUI toolkit (e.g., Eclipse). For Web-based
functionality, the term applies more generically to user agents in
general, although for purposes of evaluating conformance to ATAG 2.0, a
specific user agent(s) will be listed in the conformance
profile.
- plug-in
- A program that runs as part of the authoring
tool (e.g., a third-party evaluation and repair tool). Users generally
choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.
- presentation
- The rendering of the content and structure in a form
that can be perceived by the user.
- preview
- A non-editable view of the content that is intended to
show how it will appear and behave in a user
agent.
- prominence
- A heuristic measure of the degree to
which authors are
likely to notice controls in the authoring
tool user interface 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) 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).
- prompt
- In this document "prompt" refers to any authoring tool initiated
request for a decision or piece of information from
authors. Well designed
prompting will urge, suggest, and encourage authors.
- repairing,
accessibility
- The process by which Web
content accessibility problems that have been identified within Web
content are resolved. ATAG 2.0 identifies three types of repairing,
based on increasing levels of automation:
- Manual repairing
in which the authoring tool only provides instructions for authors to
follow in order to make the necessary correction;
- Semi-Automated repairing,
in which 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 completed; and
- Automated repairing,
in which the authoring tool is able to make repairs automatically, with
no author input
or confirmation from the author. An authoring tool may support any combination
of repairing types.
- reversible
actions
- Actions that, by their nature,
can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was
in before the action. Actions that are not reversible may incude certain
save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment
that another author has begun to work with.
- selectable
items
- Any items that an author may select from within the menus, toolbars,
palettes, etc. (e.g., "open", "save", "emphasis", "check
spelling")
- structured
element set
- Content organized into lists, maps, hierarchies (e.g., tree views), graphs,
etc.
- transcript
- A non-synchronized text
alternative for the sounds, narration, and dialogue in an audio clip
or the auditory track of a multimedia presentation. For a video, the
transcript can also include the description of actions, body language,
graphics, and scene changes of the visual track.
- transformation
- A process that takes as input, an object in one content
type and produces as output, a different object in the same content
type (e.g., a function that transforms tables into lists).
- tutorial
- A type of documentation which involves
the sequential presentation of instructions for performing multi-part tasks.
- user
agent
- 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 rendering of Web
content by an authoring tool. Authoring tool views are usually either editing
views or previews.
- Web
content (or shortened to "content")
- Any material in a content
type. If the content type is a markup
language, then "content" covers the information both within
the tags (i.e., the markup)
and between them. In this document, "content" is primarily
used in the context of the material that is authored and outputted by authoring
tools.
- Wisconsin Computer
Equivalence Algorithm for Flash Pattern Analysis (FPA)
- A method developed at the University of Wisconsin, working in conjunction
with Dr. Graham Harding and Cambridge Research Associates, for applying
the United Kingdom's "Ofcom Guidance Note on Flashing Images and Regular
Patterns in Television (Re-issued as Ofcom Notes 25 July 2005)" to
content displayed on a computer screen, such as Web pages and other computer
content.
Note: The Ofcom Guidance Document [OFCOM] is
based on the assumption that the television screen occupies the central
ten degrees of vision. This is not accurate for a screen which is located
in front of a person. The Wisconsin algorithm basically carries out the
same analysis as the Ofcom Guidelines except that is does it on every possible
ten degree window for a prototypical computer display.
- workflow
- A customary sequence of steps or tasks that are followed
to produce a deliverable.
Appendix B: 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.
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/2006/WD-ATAG20-20061207/.
- 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 paragraph including a reference to this specific document
might be written:
<p>
<cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ATAG20-????????/">
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0,"</a></cite>
J. Treviranus, J. Richards, M. May, eds.,
W3C Recommendation, ?? ???? ????.
The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/">latest
version</a> of this document is available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.</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.
A document appears in this section if at least one reference to the document
appears in a checkpoint success criteria.
- [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.
- [ATAG10]
- "Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs,
and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/.
-
-
- [ATAG20-TECHS]
- "Techniques
for Authoring Tool Accessibility 2.0", J. Treviranus, J. Richards,
C. McCathieNevile, and M. May, eds., 22 November 2004. The latest draft
of this W3C note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20-TECHS.
- [COMPONENTS]
- "Essential Components
of Web Accessibility", S. L. Henry, ed. This document is available
at http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.
- [CSS2-ACCESS]
- "Accessibility
Features of CSS," I. Jacobs and J. Brewer, eds., 4 August 1999.
This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/1999/08/NOTE-CSS-access-19990804.
The latest version of Accessibility
Features of CSS is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access.
- [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/1999/07/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available
at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.
- [OFCOM]
- Guidance Notes, Section 2: Harm and offence Annex 1, "Ofcom Guidance
Note on Flashing Images and Regular Patterns in Television (Re-issued as
Ofcom Notes 25 July 2005)" available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/guidance/bguidance/guidance2.pdf)
- [PWD-USE-WEB]
- "How
People With Disabilities Use the Web", J. Brewer, ed., 4 January
2001. This document is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/PWD-Use-Web/.
- [SMIL-ACCESS]
- "Accessibility
Features of SMIL," M.-R. Koivunen and I. Jacobs, eds., 21 September
1999. This W3C Note is available at available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL-access.
- [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.
- [SVG-ACCESS]
- "Accessibility of Scalable
Vector Graphics," C. McCathieNevile, M.-R. Koivunen, eds., 7
August 2000. This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-access.
- [WCAG10-TECHS]
- "Techniques for Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden,
and I. Jacobs, eds., 6 November 2000. This W3C Note is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-GENERAL]
- "General
Techniques for WCAG 2.0," J. Slatin, T. Croucher, eds. Note:
This document is still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-CSS]
- "CSS Techniques
for WCAG 2.0," W. Chisholm, B. Gibson, eds. Note: This
document is still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-HTML]
- "HTML Techniques
for WCAG 2.0," M. Cooper, ed. Note: This document is
still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-TECHS-SCRIPTING]
- "Client-side
Scripting Techniques for WCAG 2.0," M. May, B. Gibson, eds. Note:
This document is still a working draft.
- [WCAG20-UNDERSTANDING]
- "Understanding
WCAG 2.0," B. Caldwell, W. Chisholm, J. Slatin, G. Vanderheiden,
eds. Note: This document is still a working draft.
- [XAG]
- "XML Accessibility Guidelines",
D. Dardailler, S. B. Palmer, C. McCathieNevile, eds. 3 October 2002. This
is a Working Group Draft.
Appendix C: Acknowledgments
Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:
- Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology)
- Barry A. Feigenbaum (IBM)
- Greg Pisocky (Adobe)
- Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
- Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
- Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University
of Toronto)
Other previously active WCAG WG participants and other contributors to
WCAG 2.0
Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler,
Geoff Deering, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday,
Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Charles McCathieNevile, Matt May,
Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob
Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Heather Swayne, Gregg Vanderheiden,
Carlos Velasco, and Jason White.
This document would not have been possible without the work of those
who contributed to ATAG 1.0.
This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S.
Department of Education under contract number ED05CO0039. The content of
this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the
U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
