Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

Abstract

The "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).

Status of This Document

May be Superseded

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

Web Accessibility Initiative

This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the AUWG are discussed in the Working Group charter. The AUWG is part of the WAI Technical Activity.

No Endorsement

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

Patents

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

Introduction

ATAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance

The individuals and organizations that may use ATAG 2.0 vary widely and include authoring tool developers, authoring tool users (authors), authoring tool purchasers, and policy makers. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance are provided including two parts, overall principles, general guidelines, testable success criteria and an Implementing ATAG 2.0 document.

• Parts - ATAG 2.0 is divided into two parts, each reflecting a key aspect of accessible authoring tools. Part A relates to ensuring accessibility of the authoring tool user interface to authors with disabilities. Part B relates to ensuring support by authoring tools for the creation of accessible web content by any author (not just those with disabilities) to end users with disabilities.
• Principles - Each of the two parts have principles that provide the high-level view of what accessible authoring tools entail.
• Guidelines - Under the principles are guidelines. The guidelines provide the basic goals that authoring tool developers should work toward in order to make authoring tools more accessible to authors and web content end users with different disabilities. The guidelines are not testable, but provide the framework and overall objectives to help authoring tool developers understand the success criteria. Each guideline includes a brief rationale for why the guideline was included.
• Success Criteria - For each guideline, testable success criteria are provided to allow ATAG 2.0 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification, purchasing, regulation, and contractual agreements. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, multiple levels of full and partial conformance are defined. See Levels of Conformance.
• Implementing ATAG 2.0 document - The Implementing ATAG 2.0 document provides additional non-normative information for each success criterion, including a description of the intent of the success criterion, examples and links to related resource.

Understanding Levels of Conformance

In order to ensure that the process of using ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 together in the development of authoring tools is as simple as possible, ATAG 2.0 shares WCAG 2.0's three level conformance model: Level A (lowest), AA (middle), AAA (highest).

As with WCAG 2.0, there are a number of conditions that must be met for a success criterion to be included in ATAG 2.0. These include:

1. All success criteria must:
   • present authoring tool user interface-related accessibility issues (in Part A). In other words, the access issue must cause a proportionately greater problem for authors with disabilities than it causes authors without disabilities and must be specific to authoring tool software, as opposed to software in general, or
   • present accessible web content production issues (in Part B). In other words, the issue must be specific to the production of accessible web content by authoring tools, as opposed to the production of web content in general.
2. All success criteria must also be testable. This is important since otherwise it would not be possible to determine whether an authoring tool met or failed to meet the success criteria. The success criteria can be tested by a combination of machine and human evaluation as long as it is possible to determine whether a success criterion has been satisfied with a high level of confidence.

The success criteria were assigned to one of the three levels of conformance by the working group after taking into consideration a wide range of interacting issues. Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part A included:

• whether the success criterion is essential (in other words, if the success criterion is not met, then even the assistive technology cannot make content accessible)
• whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for all types of authoring tools that the success criteria would apply to (e.g., text editors, WYSIWYG editors, content management systems, etc.)
• whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools. (limits on function, presentation, freedom of expression, design or aesthetic that the success criteria might place on developers)
• whether there are no workarounds for authors if the success criteria is not met

Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part B included:

• whether the success criterion is essential (in other words, if the success criterion is not met, then even authors with a high degree of accessibility expertise would be unlikely to produce accessible web content using an authoring tool)
• whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for the production of all web content technologies that the success criteria would apply to.
• whether the success criterion requires features that would reasonably be used by authors.
• whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools. (limits on function, presentation, freedom of expression, design or aesthetic that the success criteria might place on developers)

Integration of Accessibility Features

When implementing ATAG 2.0, it is recommended that authoring tool developers closely integrate features that support accessible authoring with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. Close integration has the potential to:

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

Guidelines

Conformance

Conformance means that the authoring tool satisfies the success criteria defined in the guidelines section. This conformance section describes conformance and lists the conformance requirements.

Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

Because WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20] is the most recent W3C Recommendation regarding web content accessibility, ATAG 2.0 frequently refers to WCAG 2.0 conformance in order to set requirements for (1) the accessibility of web-based authoring tool user interfaces (Part A) and (2) how authors should be enabled, supported, and guided towards producing accessible web content (Part B).

Note on "accessibility-supported ways of using technologies":

Part of conformance to WCAG 2.0 is the requirement that "only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the [WCAG 2.0] success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported." In broad terms, WCAG 2.0 considers a web content technology to be accessibility supported when (1) the way that the web content technology is used is supported by users' assistive technology and (2) the web content technology has accessibility-supported user agents that are available to end users.

This concept is not easily extended to authoring tools because many authoring tools can be installed and used in a variety of environments with differing availabilities for assistive technologies and user agents (e.g., private intranets versus public websites, monolingual sites versus multilingual sites, etc.). Therefore:

For the purposes of ATAG 2.0 conformance, the accessibility-supported requirement is waived.

Once an authoring tool has been installed and put into use, it is possible to assess the WCAG 2.0 conformance of the web content that the authoring tool produces, including whether the WCAG 2.0 accessibility-supported requirement is met. However, this WCAG 2.0 conformance assessment would be completely independent of the authoring tool's conformance with ATAG 2.0.

Levels of Conformance

Conformance Levels in Conformance Claims

Authoring tools may claim "full" or "partial" conformance to ATAG 2.0. In either case, a level is also claimed which depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied.

1. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "A"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria.
2. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Double-A"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria.
3. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Triple-A"
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Authoring Tool User Interface: This type of conformance claim is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the authoring tool to authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible):

1. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A": Authoring Tool User Interface
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
2. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A": Authoring Tool User Interface
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.
3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A": Authoring Tool User Interface
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Content Production:This type of conformance claim is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the web content produced by the authoring tool to end users (Part B: Support the production of accessible content):

1. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A": Content Production
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
2. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A": Content Production
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.
3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A": Content Production
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.

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 only as a step towards "Full" Conformance.

Conformance Claims

If a conformance claim is made, then the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information (authoring tools can conform to ATAG 2.0 without making a claim):

Conditions on Conformance Claims

• At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting level "A" of WCAG 2.0. A suggested metadata description for this document is "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".
• Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., product information web site), 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., authoring tool developers, journalists, other third parties).
• Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims (including claims that include products for which they are not responsible) and keeping claims up to date.
• Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation.

Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

1. Claimant name and affiliation.
2. Date of the claim.
3. Conformance level satisfied.
4. Authoring tool information: The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e.g., vendor name, version number (or version range), required patches or updates, human language of the user interface or documentation).
   • Note: If the authoring tool is a collection of software components (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. As stated above, the Claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim, not the developer of any of the software components.
5. Included Technologies: A list of the web content technologies (including version numbers) produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is including in the conformance claim. By including a web content technology, the Claimant is claiming that the authoring tool meets the requirements of ATAG 2.0 during the production of web content using that web content technology.
   • Note 1: For each web content technology, provide information on how the web content technology might be used to create accessible web content (e.g., provide links to technology-specific techniques). At minimum, the web content technology must be capable of providing conforming alternate versions.
   • Note 2: Web content technologies may be a combination of constituent web content technologies. For example, an image technology (e.g., PNG) might be listed together with a markup technology (e.g., HTML) since web content in the markup technology is used make web content in the image technology accessible (e.g., a PNG graph is made accessible using an HTML table).
   • Note 3: The list must include any web content technologies that are selected by the authoring tool for either automatic content generation or as the default technology for author-generated content.
   • Note 4: The list may include other web content technologies that author(s) can produce using the authoring tool, including interim formats that are not intended for publishing, but this is not required.
6. Excluded Technologies: A list of any web content technologies produced by the the authoring tool that the Claimant is excluding from the conformance claim. The authoring tool is not required to meet the requirements of ATAG 2.0 during the production of the web content technologies on this list.
7. Declarations: For each success criterion:
   • A declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied; or
   • A declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not.
8. Platform(s): The platform(s) upon which the authoring tool was evaluated:
   • For user agent platform(s) (used to evaluate web-based authoring tool user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the user agent(s).
   • For platforms that are not user agents (used to evaluate non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces) provide: The name and version information of the platform(s) (e.g., operating system, etc.) and the the name and version of the platform accessibility architecture(s) employed.

Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

1. A description of the authoring tool that identifies the types of editing views that it includes.
2. A description of how the ATAG 2.0 success criteria were met where this may not be obvious.

"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.

Disclaimer

Neither W3C, WAI, nor AUWG take any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance claim that has not been published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or AUWG.

Appendix A: Glossary

abbreviation [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Shortened form of a word, phrase, or name where the abbreviation has not become part of the language. Includes:

1. initialism: shortened forms of a name or phrase made from the initial letters of words or syllables contained in that name or phrase (e.g., ESP is an initialism for extrasensory perception).
2. acronym: abbreviated forms made from the initial letters or parts of other words (in a name or phrase) which may be pronounced as a word (e.g., WAI is an acronym made from the initial letters of the Web Accessibility Initiative).

accessibility problem

ATAG 2.0 refers to two types of accessibility problems:

1. authoring tool user interface accessibility problem: An aspect of an authoring tool user interface that does not meet a success criterion in Part A of ATAG 2.0.
2. web content accessibility problem: An aspect of web content that does not meet a WCAG 2.0 success criterion.

accessibility information

Any information that web content is required to contain in order to conform with a particular level of WCAG 2.0 (e.g., text alternatives for images, role and state information for widgets, relationships within complex tables, captions for audio).

accessible content support features

Any features of an authoring tool that directly support authors in increasing the accessibility of the content being edited (i.e., features added to meet any of the success criteria in Principle B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content).

alternative content

Content that is used in place of other content that a person may not be able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. Examples include text alternatives for non-text content, captions for audio, audio descriptions for video, sign language for audio, media alternatives for time-based media. See WCAG 2.0 for more information.

ASCII art [WCAG 2.0]

A picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).

assistive technology [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features. Examples of assistive technologies include, but are not limited to, the following:

• screen magnifiers, and other visual reading assistants, which are used by people with visual, perceptual and physical print disabilities to change text font, size, spacing, color, synchronization with speech, etc. in order improve the visual readability of rendered text and images;
• screen readers, which are used by people who are blind to read textual information through synthesized speech or braille;
• text-to-speech software, which is used by some people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities to convert text into synthetic speech;
• speech recognition software, which may be used by people who have some physical disabilities;
• alternative keyboards, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers, single switches, sip/puff and other special input devices);
• alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations.

audio [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

The technology of sound reproduction. Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis), recorded from real world sounds, or both.

authoring action

Any action that authors can take using the authoring tool user interface that results in creating or editing web content (e.g., typing text, deleting, inserting an element, applying a template). Most authoring tool user interfaces also enable actions that do not edit web content (e.g., setting preferences, viewing documentation).

authoring outcome

The content or content modifications that result from authoring actions. Authoring outcomes are cumulative (e.g., text is entered, then styled, then made into a link, then given a title).

authoring practice

An approach that authors follow to achieve a given authoring outcome. (e.g., controlling presentation with style sheets). Depending on the design of an authoring tool, authoring practices may be chosen by the authors or by the authoring tool. An accessible authoring practice is one in which the authoring outcome conforms to WCAG 2.0 . Some accessible authoring practices require accessibility information.

authoring session

A state of the authoring tool in which content can be edited by an author. The end of an authoring session is the point at which the author has no further opportunity to make changes without starting another session. The end of an authoring session may be determined by authors (e.g., closing a document, publishing) or by the authoring tool (e.g., when the authoring tool transfers editing permission to another author on a collaborative system). Note that the end of the authoring session is distinct from publishing. Automatic content generation may continue after the end of both the authoring session and initial publishing (e.g., content management system updates).

authoring tool user interface

The display and control mechanism that authors use to operate the authoring tool software. User interfaces may be non-web-based or web-based or a combination (e.g., a non-web-based authoring tool might have web-based help pages). An accessible authoring tool user interface is one that meets the success criteria of a level in Part A.

authoring tool user interface (non-web-based)

Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are not implemented as web content and instead run directly on a platform that is not a user agent, such as Windows, MacOS, Java Virtual Machine, etc.

authoring tool user interface (web-based)

Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are implemented using web content technologies and are accessed by authors via a user agent.

authoring tool

Any software, or collection of software components, that authors can use to create or modify web content for use by other people.

1. Examples of authoring tools: ATAG 2.0 applies to a wide variety of web content generating applications, including, but not limited to:
   • web page authoring tools (e.g., WYSIWYG HTML editors)
   • software for directly editing source code (see note below)
   • software for converting to web content technologies (e.g., "Save as HTML" features in office suites)
   • integrated development environments (e.g., for web application development)
   • software that generates web content on the basis of templates, scripts, command-line input or "wizard"-type processes
   • software for rapidly updating portions of web pages (e.g., blogging, wikis, online forums)
   • software for generating/managing entire web sites (e.g., content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators)
   • email clients that send messages in web content technologies
   • multimedia authoring tools
   • debugging tools for web content
   • software for creating mobile web applications
2. Web-based and non-web-based: ATAG 2.0 applies equally to authoring tools of web content that are web-based, non-web-based or a combination (e.g., a non-web-based markup editor with a web-based help system, a web-based content management system with a non-web-based file uploader client).
3. Real-time publishing: ATAG 2.0 applies to authoring tools with workflows that involve real-time publishing of web content (e.g., some collaborative tools). For these authoring tools, conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 may involve some combination of real-time accessibility supports and additional accessibility supports available after the real-time authoring session (e.g., the ability to add captions for audio that was initially published in real-time). For more information, see the Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix E: Real-time content production.
4. Text Editors: ATAG 2.0 is not intended to apply to simple text editors that can be used to edit source content, but that include no support for the production of any particular web content technology. In contrast, ATAG 2.0 can apply to more sophisticated source content editors that support the production of specific web content technologies (e.g., with syntax checking, markup prediction, etc.).

author permission

Whether a person has a right to modify given web content. In other words, whether they qualify as an author of the content. Some authoring tools are capable of managing authoring permissions in order to prevent unauthorized modifications.

authors

One or more people using an authoring tool to create or modify web content for use by other people. This may include content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. working either alone or collaboratively. A person only qualifies as an author of some given web content if (1) the authoring tool supports the relevant web content technology used to implement that web content and (2) the person has author permission for that web content.

checking (accessibility) [harmonized with EARL 1.0]

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 of the tests:

1. manual checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure;
2. semi-automated checking: where the tests are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the tests; and
3. automated checking: where the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by the authors.

An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types.

collection of software components

Any software programs that are used either 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 software components.

conforming alternate version [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

A version of web content that:

1. conforms at the designated level, and
2. provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language, and
3. is as up to date as the non-conforming content, and
4. for which at least one of the following is true:
   1. the conforming version can be reached from the non-conforming page via an accessibility-supported mechanism, or
   2. the non-conforming version can only be reached from the conforming version, or
   3. the non-conforming version can only be reached from a conforming page that also provides a mechanism to reach the conforming version

• Note 1: In this definition, "can only be reached" means that there is some mechanism, such as a conditional redirect, that prevents a user from "reaching" (loading) the non-conforming page unless the user had just come from the conforming version.
• Note 2: The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the original (e.g., the conforming alternate version may consist of multiple pages).
• Note 3: If multiple language versions are available, then conforming alternate versions are required for each language offered.
• Note 4: Alternate versions may be provided to accommodate different technology environments or user groups. Each version should be as conformant as possible. One version would need to be fully conformant in order to meet conformance requirement 1.
• Note 5: The conforming alternative version does not need to reside within the scope of conformance, or even on the same web site, as long as it is as freely available as the non-conforming version.
• Note 6: Alternate versions should not be confused with supplementary content, which support the original page and enhance comprehension.
• Note 7: Setting user preferences within the content to produce a conforming version is an acceptable mechanism for reaching another version as long as the method used to set the preferences is accessibility supported.

content generation

The act of specifying the web content to be rendered, played or executed by user agents. This may refer to information perceived by end users or to instructions for the user agents. Content may be author-generated when authors are fully responsible for the web content(e.g., typing markup into a source content editing view, writing captions for audio, etc.) or automatically-generated when programming by the authoring tool developer is responsible for the web content (e.g., applying a template, automatically correcting markup errors, etc.). In some cases, responsibility for content generation is shared, as when an author requests an interactive object be placed on their page (e.g., a photo album), the authoring tool applies a template, but the template requires input from the authors to be complete.

content rendering

User interface functionality that authoring tools present if they render, play or execute the web content being edited. In ATAG 2.0 the term covers conventional renderings (e.g., WYSIWYG), unconventional renderings (e.g., rendering an audio file as a graphical wavefront) and partial renderings, in which some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or executed, but not others (e.g., a frame-by-frame video editor renders the graphical, but not the timing aspects, of a video).

control settings

Settings that relate to how authors control the authoring tool, for example using the keyboard or mouse

developer

Any entities or individuals responsible for programming the authoring tool. This includes the programmers of any additional software components included by the Claimant in the conformance claim. In some cases, development of the authoring tool is complete before authors can use it to publish web content. However, in other cases (e.g., some web-based authoring tools), the developer may continue to modify the authoring tool even after web content has been published, such that the web content experienced by the end user is modified.

direct accessibility features

Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet the requirements of authors with disabilities (e.g., keyboard navigation, zoom features, text-to-speech). Additional or specialized functionality may still be provided by external assistive technology.

display settings

Display settings includes:

1. display settings (audio): the characteristics of audio output of music, sounds and speech. Examples include volume, speech voices, voice speed, and voice emphasis.
2. display settings (visual): the characteristics of the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. Examples include fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.
3. display settings (tactile): the characteristics of haptic output. Examples include the magnitude of the haptic forces and the types of vibration.

documentation

Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, sample work flows, tutorials, etc.

document object

The internal representation of data in the source content by a non-web based authoring tool or user agent. The document object may form part of a platform accessibility architecture that enables communication with assistive technologies. web-based authoring tools are considered to make use of the document object that is maintained by the user agent.

element

A pair of markup tags and its content, or an "empty tag" (one that requires no closing tag or content).

end user

A person who interacts with web content once it has been authored. This includes people using assistive technologies.

freehand drawing

An authoring action in which content is created or modified on the basis of continuously recording data (e.g., the location, speed, pressure, angle) from a pointing device (e.g., mouse, stylus). Freehand drawing does not include other uses of pointing devices, such as setting endpoints, drag-and-drop or entering text via a handwriting recognition system. Freehand drawing also does not include setting the properties (e.g., color, line thickness) of freehand drawn content objects as a whole.

human language [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means ) to communicate with humans.

informative [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

For information purposes and not required for conformance.

keyboard interface

An interface used by software to obtain keystroke input. A keyboard interface can allows keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a conventional keyboard (e.g., a touchscreen PDA can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected). Keyboard-operated mouse emulators, such as MouseKeys, do not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because these emulators use pointing device interfaces, not keyboard interfaces.

keyboard trap

A user interface situation in which the keyboard may be used to move focus to, but not from, a control or group of controls.

label [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to users to identify a component. A label is presented to all users whereas the name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. In many (but not all) cases the name and the label are the same.

markup language

A system of text annotations (e.g., elements in HTML) and processing rules that may be used to specify the structure, presentation or semantics of content. Examples of markup languages include HTML and SVG. The markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content.

name [WCAG 2.0]

Text by which software can identify a component to the user. The name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology, whereas a label is presented to all users. In many (but not all) cases, the label and the name are the same.

non-text content [WCAG 2.0]

Any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be recognized or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters), emoticons, and images representing text.

normative [WCAG 2.0, UAAG 2.0]

Required for conformance. One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document. Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance.

option

When an author is presented with choices. An option may be local (e.g., prompting whether to save before ending an authoring session) or global (e.g., preference settings).

platform

The software environment within which the authoring tool operates. In the case of web-based authoring user interfaces, this will be user agents. In the case of non-web-based user interfaces this will be operating systems (e.g., Windows, Mac OS, Linux), virtual machines (e.g., JVM), etc.

platform accessibility architecture

A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e.g., MSAA and UI Automation for Windows applications, AXAPI for MacOSX applications, Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome applications, Java Access for Java applications, etc.). On some platforms, it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object.

plug-in [UAAG 2.0]

A program that runs as part of the authoring tool (e.g., a third-party checking and repair tool) and that is not part of content being edited. Authors generally choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.

presentation [WCAG 2.0]

Rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by authors.

programmatically determined (programmatically determinable) [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

When information is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the information in different modalities. For non-web-based user interfaces, this means making use of a platform accessibility architecture. For web-based user interfaces , this means following WCAG 2.0 so that the user agent can pass on the information.

prominence

A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (e.g., single controls, groups of controls, text messages) in a user interface that they are operating. Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual properties (e.g., size, spacing, color), and even the modality of use (e.g., mouse vs. keyboard use). For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be at least as prominent as item B if:

1. both items occur in the same item container (e.g., a menu for menu items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes);
2. if item B is emphasized, then so is item A; and
3. item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows item B.

prompt

Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors. Well designed prompting will urge, suggest, and encourage authors.

publishing

The point at which the authors or authoring tool make content available to end users (e.g., uploading a web page, committing a change in a wiki).

recognized (by the authoring tool)

When an authoring tool is able to process encoded information, such as labels, names, roles or relationships, with certainty. For example, an authoring tool would only be able to recognize a particular text string as a text label for non-text content, if this relationship was appropriately encoded (e.g., in an "alt" attribute, by a "labeledby" property). If success criteria apply to recognized types of content (e.g., tool-recognized alternative content), the conformance claim must list the recognized types.

relationships [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content.

repairing (accessibility) [harmonized with EARL 1.0]

The process by which web content accessibility problems that have been identified within content are resolved. ATAG 2.0 identifies three types of repairing, based on increasing levels of automation:

1. manual: where the repairs are carried out by authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure;
2. semi-automated: where the repairs are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to complete the repair; and
3. automated: where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by the authors.

reversible actions

Authoring actions that, by their nature, can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was in before the action. Irreversible actions are actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with.

role [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Text or a number by which software can identify the function of a component within web content (e.g., a string that indicates whether an image functions as a hyperlink, command button, or check box).

technology (web content) [harmonized with WCAG 2.0]

A mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents. Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic web applications. Some common examples of web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript.

template

A content pattern that is filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users (e.g., document templates, content management templates, presentation themes). Often templates will pre-specify at least some authoring decisions.

template selection mechanism

A function beyond standard file selection that allows authors to select templates to use as the basis for new content or to apply to existing content.

tutorial

A type of documentation that provides step-by-step instructions for performing multi-part tasks.

user agent [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with web content. Examples include web browsers, browser plug-ins, and media players.

user interface component [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

A part of the user interface or content display (including content renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a distinct function.

video [WCAG 2.0]

The technology of moving pictures or images. Video can be made up of animated or photographic images, or both.

view

A user interface function that authors use to interact with the content being edited. ATAG 2.0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing and the way in which they present content:

1. editing views are editable.
2. previews are not editable and present content as it would appear in a user agent.

There are three approaches to presenting the content in a view:

1. as source content in which the unrendered content is presented (e.g., plain text editors),
2. as content rendering, and
3. as pre-built content in which authors set only high-level options that the authoring tool then interprets to generate the resulting content (e.g., a calendar module in a content management system).

web content [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the end user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions. In ATAG 2.0, "web content" is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool. "Web content" may include web applications, including those that act as web-based authoring tools. Accessible web content is web content that conforms to a particular level of WCAG 2.0 (see Relationship to WCAG 2.0 section). Structured web content is web content that includes machine-readable internal structure (e.g., markup elements), as opposed to unstructured content, such as raster image formats or plain human language text.

web content transformation

A process that takes as input, content in one web content technology or non-web content technology (e.g., a word processing format) and produces as output, web content that has been restructured (linearizing tables, splitting a document into pages), re-coded (e.g., HTML to XHTML, a word processing format to HTML) or optimized (e.g., removing whitespace, re-compressing images).

workflow

A customary sequence of steps or tasks authors follow to produce a content deliverable. If an authoring tool is composed of a collection of software components, then its workflows may include use of one or more of the components.

WYSIWYG

This is an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". A WYSIWYG view displays (to authors) the content being edited in a way that is very similar to how it will appear to end users.

Appendix C: References

This section is informative.

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.

[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/.

[UAAG]

"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, E. Hansen, eds.17 December 2002. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/.

[WCAG20]

"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 ", B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, and G. Vanderheiden.

Appendix D: Acknowledgments

Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:

• Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology)
• Ann McMeekin (Invited Expert)
• Sueann Nichols (IBM)
• Greg Pisocky (Adobe)
• Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
• Andrew Ronksley (Royal National Institute for the Blind)
• Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Reed Shaffner (Microsoft)
• Dana Simberkoff (HiSoftware Inc.)
• Jeanne Spellman (W3C)
• Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)

Other previously active AUWG participants and other contributors to ATAG 2.0:

Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler, Geoff Deering, Barry A. Feigenbaum, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Karen Mardahl, Charles McCathieNevile, Matt May, Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Michael Squillace, 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, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) 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.