This specification provides guidelines for designing web content authoring
tools that are both (1) more accessible to authors with disabilities and (2) designed to enable,
support, and promote the production of accessible web content by all authors.
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).
W3C Public Working Draft of ATAG 2.0
This is the W3C Last Call Working Draft of 8 July 2010. This draft
integrates changes made as a result of comments received on the 29 October 2009
Public Working Draft.
Publication as a Last Call Working Draft indicates that the Authoring Tool
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) believes it has addressed all
substantive issues and that the document is stable. The first public Working
Draft of ATAG 2.0 was published 14 March 2003. Since then, the AUWG has published nine Working Drafts and one previous Last Call Working Draft, addressed hundreds of issues and developed implementation support information for the guidelines. See How WAI Develops Accessibility
Guidelines through the W3C Process for more background on document maturity
levels.
Substantial changes from the 29 October 2009 draft include:
- The ATAG Working Group (AUWG) has approved a number of requests for
changes to improve the clarity of the document.
- The conformance section now specifically waives "accessibility-supported
ways of using technologies" from WCAG 2.0 for evaluating ATAG 2.0
conformance, because WCAG 2.0 accessibility support is typically not
evaluated until the content is created.
- The success criteria "B.2.1.1 Decision Support" has been changed to
clarify the responsibilities of the developer of the authoring tool as to
which technologies require warnings, and to link to the conformance claim
for more information.
- The success criteria "B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A)" has been changed to make it more flexible. The authoring tool will now require a check for success criteria that the author has the ability to violate, instead of being required to test every success criteria.
The Working Group seeks feedback on the following points for this draft:
- Does ATAG 2.0 address the shortcomings of ATAG 1.0?
- Since authoring tool developers will need to use ATAG 2.0 in conjunction with WCAG 2.0, are the documents sufficiently similar in style and approach to be effective?
- Do users with disabilities think that their needs have been addressed with
regard to Section A?
- Is the conformance claim process usable by developers of authoring tool
software?
Comments on this working draft are due on or before 2 September
2010. Comments on the draft should be sent to public-atag2-comments@w3.org (Public
Archive).
The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) intends to publish ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Recommendation. Until that time Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.0 [ATAG10] is the stable, referenceable version. This Working Draft does not supersede ATAG 1.0.
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.
This section is informative.
This is a Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version
2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting authoring tool developers to make the authoring tools that they develop more accessible to people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech difficulties, and others.
Accessibility, from an authoring tool perspective, includes addressing the needs of two overlapping user groups with disabilities:
It is important to note that, while the requirements for meeting these two sets of user needs are separated for clarity within the guidelines, the accelerating trend toward user-produced content means that in reality they are deeply inter-connected. For example, when a user participates in an online forum they frequently author web content that is then incorporated with other content authored by other users. Accessibility problems in either the authoring user interface or the web content produced by the other forum users would reduce the overall accessibility of the forum.
Notes:
- The term "authoring tools" has a specific definition in ATAG 2.0. The definition, which includes several normative notes, appears in the Glossary.
- ATAG 2.0 recommends that authoring tools be capable of producing web content that conforms with WCAG 2.0. However, WCAG 2.0 notes that even content that conforms to the highest level of WCAG 2.0 (i.e., Level AAA) may not be "accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas". Development of authoring tools that address more specialized needs is encouraged, but is beyond the scope of this document.
- ATAG 2.0 does not include standard usability recommendations, except where they have a significantly greater impact on people
with disabilities than on other people.
- Authoring tools are just one aspect of web accessibility. For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see:
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 the accessibility of authoring tool user interfaces to authors with disabilities. Part B relates to ensuring support by authoring tools for the creation, by any author (not just those with disabilities), of web content that is accessible to end
users with disabilities. Each part includes normative applicability notes that apply to all of the success criteria within that part (see Part A Applicability Notes, Part B Applicability Notes).
- Principles: Each of the two parts includes several high-level principles that organize the guidelines.
- 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 both authors and end
users of web content 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 resources.
All of these layers of guidance (parts, principles, guidelines, success criteria, and the Implementing ATAG 2.0 document) work together to provide guidance on how to make authoring tools more accessible. Authoring tool developers are encouraged to review all of the layers.
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:
- For Part A, all success criteria must present authoring tool user interface-related accessibility issues. In other words, the user interface 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.
- For
Part B, all success criteria must present accessible web content production issues. 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.
- 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 assistive
technology cannot make the authoring tool user interface 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 (e.g., limits on the function, design, aesthetic or freedom of expression of authoring tool developers)
- whether there are workarounds for authors with disabilities if the success criterion 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 (e.g., limits on the function, design, aesthetic or freedom of expression of authoring tool 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
The success criteria and applicability notes in this section are normative.
PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible
- Scope of authoring tool user interface: The Part
A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the authoring tool developer. This includes views of the web content being edited and features that are independent of the content being edited, such as menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences, documentation, etc.
- Reflected web content accessibility problems: The authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that editing-views display the web content being edited in a way that is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.g., ensuring that text alternatives in the content can be programmatically determined). However, where an accessibility problem is caused directly by the content being edited (e.g., if an image in the content lacks a text alternative), then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface.
- User agent features: Web-based authoring tools may rely on user agent features (e.g., keyboard navigation, find functions, display preferences, undo features, etc.) to satisfy success criteria. If a conformance claim is made, the claim cites the user agent.
- Features for meeting Part A must be accessible: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.g., documentation, search functions, etc.). The only exemption is for preview features,
as long as they meet Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing-views because all authors, including those with disabilities, benefit when preview features accurately reflect the actual functionality of user
agents.
PRINCIPLE A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines
Guideline A.1.1:(For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible.
[Implementing A.1.1]
Rationale: When authoring tools or parts of authoring tools (e.g., an online help system) are web-based, conforming to WCAG 2.0 will facilitate access by all authors, including those using assistive technologies.
Guideline A.1.2:(For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that non-web-based functionality is accessible.
[Implementing A.1.2]
Rationale: When authoring tools or parts of authoring tools are non-web-based (e.g., a client-side file uploader for a web-based content management system), following existing accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that support accessibility will facilitate access by all authors, including those using assistive technologies.
PRINCIPLE A.2: Editing-views must be perceivable
Guideline A.2.1:(For the authoring tool user interface) Make alternative content available to authors.
[Implementing A.2.1]
Rationale: Some authors require access to alternative content in order to interact with the web content that they are editing.
Guideline A.2.2:(For the authoring tool user interface) Editing-view presentation can be programmatically determined.
[Implementing A.2.2]
Rationale: Some authors need access to the editing-view presentation because this may be used to convey both status information added by the authoring tool (e.g., underlining misspelled words) and, within content renderings, information about the end user experience of the web content being edited.
PRINCIPLE A.3: Editing-views must be operable
Guideline A.3.1:(For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard access to authoring features. [Implementing A.3.1]
Rationale: Some authors with
limited mobility or visual disabilities are not able to use a mouse, and instead require full keyboard access.
A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface, except where editing web content properties that encode continuous input. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.1.1]
Note 1: This exception relates to the nature of web content, not the usual input technique. For example, setting the path of a freehand curve is exempt, while setting the endpoints of a straight line is not.
Note 2: This should not be interpreted as discouraging mouse input or other input methods in addition to the keyboard interface.
A.3.1.2 No Content Keyboard Traps: Keyboard traps are prevented as follows: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.1.2]
(a) In the Authoring Tool User Interface: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using the keyboard, then focus can be moved away from that component using standard keyboard navigation commands (e.g., TAB key); and
(b) In Editing Views that Render Web Content: If an editing-view renders web content (e.g., WYSIWYG view), then a documented keyboard command is provided that will always restore keyboard focus to a known location (e.g., the menus).
Guideline A.3.2:(For the authoring tool user interface) Provide authors with enough time.
[Implementing A.3.2]
Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing, operating the mouse, or processing information can be prevented from using systems with short time limits or requiring a fast reaction speed, such as clicking on a moving target.
A.3.2.1 Data Saved (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits, then the authoring tool saves all submitted content edits made by authors. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.2.1]
A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.2.2]
(a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or
(b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or
(c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g., "press the space bar"), and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or
(d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g., a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or
(e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or
(f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.
A.3.2.3 Static Pointer Targets: User interface components that accept
pointer input are either stationary or authors can pause the movement. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.2.3]
Guideline A.3.3:(For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures.
[Implementing A.3.3]
Rationale: Flashing can cause seizures in authors with photosensitive seizure disorder.
Guideline A.3.4:(For the authoring tool user interface) Enhance navigation and editing via content structure.
[Implementing A.3.4]
Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools make use of the structure present in web content to simplify the tasks of navigation and editing the content.
Guideline A.3.5:(For the authoring tool user interface) Provide text search of the content.
[Implementing A.3.5]
Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to use text search to navigate to arbitrary points within the web content being authored.
A.3.5.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows: (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.5.1]
(a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markup elements and attributes;
Note: If the current editing-view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing-view to display the results;
and
(b) Two-way: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and
(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.
Guideline A.3.6:(For the authoring tool user interface) Manage preference settings.
[Implementing A.3.6]
Rationale: Some authors need to set their own display settings in a way that differs from the presentation that they want to define for the published web content. Providing the ability to save and reload sets of keyboard and display preference settings benefits authors who have needs that differ over time (e.g., due to fatigue).
Guideline A.3.7:(For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that previews are as accessible as existing user agents.
[Implementing A.3.7]
Rationale: Preview features are provided in many authoring tools because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how user agents will display the web content to end users. Authors with disabilities need to be able to follow the same workflow.
A.3.7.1 Return Mechanism: If a preview is provided, then authors can return from the preview using only keyboard commands. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.7.1]
A.3.7.2 Preview: If a preview is provided, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.7.2]
(a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent; or
(b) UAAG (Level A): The preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A [UAAG].
PRINCIPLE A.4: Editing-views must be understandable
Guideline A.4.1:(For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid and correct mistakes.
[Implementing A.4.1]
Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty making fine movements may be prone to making unintended actions.
A.4.1.1 Undo Content Changes: Authoring actions are either reversible by an "undo" function or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible. (Level A) [Implementing A.4.1.1]
Note 1: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions (e.g., typed words, a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.
Note 2: It is acceptable for certain committing actions (e.g., "save", "publish") to make all previous authoring actions irreversible.
A.4.1.2 Undo Setting Changes: Actions that modify authoring tool settings are either reversible or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible. (Level A) [Implementing A.4.1.2]
Guideline A.4.2:(For the authoring tool user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility features.
[Implementing A.4.2]
Rationale: Some authors may not be able to understand or operate the authoring tool user interface without proper accessible documentation.
PART B: Support the production of accessible content
Applicability Notes:
- Author availability: Any Part B success criteria that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions.
- Applicability after the end of an authoring session: Authoring tools are responsible for the accessibility of web content that they automatically generate after the end of an author's authoring session. For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a content management system, these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content. Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of content that the author has specified, whether it is author-generated or automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified (e.g., a third-party feed).
- Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.g., an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking tool).
- Features for meeting Part B must be accessible: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.g., checking tools, repair tools, tutorials, documentation, etc.).
- Multiple author roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles, each with different views and content editing permissions (e.g., a content management system may separate the roles of designers, content authors, and quality assurers). In these cases, the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole, not to the view provided to any particular author role.
PRINCIPLE B.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled
Guideline B.1.1: Support web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible.
[Implementing B.1.1]
Rationale: For the purposes of this document, WCAG 2.0 defines the accessible web content requirements. To support accessible web content production, at minimum, it must be possible to produce web content that conforms with WCAG 2.0 using the authoring tool.
Guideline B.1.2: Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.
[Implementing B.1.2]
Rationale: Accessibility information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility between the input and output of web content transformations.
B.1.2.4 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason, then at least one of the following is true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.1.2.4]
(a) Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility
information; or
(b) Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion; or
(c) No Deletion Option: Authors have the option to prevent automatic deletion by the authoring tool.
Guideline B.1.3: Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible.
[Implementing B.1.3]
Rationale: Authoring tools that automatically generate content that is not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.
See Also: If templates or other pre-authored content are involved, see Guideline B.2.5.
PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content
Guideline B.2.1: Guide authors to create accessible content.
[Implementing B.2.1]
Rationale: By guiding authors from the outset towards the creation and maintenance of accessible web content, web content accessibility problems are mitigated and less repair effort is required.
Guideline B.2.2: Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.
[Implementing B.2.2]
Rationale: Accessibility checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool helps make authors aware of web content accessibility problems during the authoring process, so they can be immediately addressed.
B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool
provides authors
with the ability to add or modify web content
so that any WCAG 2.0 Level A Success Criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking
for those success criteria is provided (e.g., an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions). (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2.1]
Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. However, manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In manual checking, the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems, which authors must carry out by themselves. For more information on checking, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.
B.2.2.3 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), instructions are provided to help authors decide whether it is correctly identified. (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2.3]
B.2.2.4 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), the relevant content is identified (e.g., highlighting the affected content, displaying line numbers, etc.) (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2.4]
B.2.2.5 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool
provides authors
with the ability to add or modify web content
so that any WCAG 2.0 Level AA Success Criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking
for those success criteria is provided. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.2.5]
Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. However, manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In manual checking, the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems, which authors must carry out by themselves. For more information on checking, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.
B.2.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.2.6]Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. For example, the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc.
B.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.2.7]Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.g., specific check results, summary conformance claims, etc.)
Guideline B.2.3: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems.
[Implementing B.2.3]
Rationale: Repair as an integral part of the authoring process greatly enhances the utility of checking and increases the likelihood that accessibility problems will be properly addressed.
Guideline B.2.4: Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.
[Implementing B.2.4]
Rationale: Improperly generated alternative content can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.
See Also: This guideline applies when non-text content is specified by authors (e.g., inserts an image). When non-text content is automatically added by the authoring tool, see Guideline B.1.3.
Guideline B.2.5: Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.
[Implementing B.2.5]
Rationale: Providing accessible templates and other pre-authored content (e.g., clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.) can have several benefits, including: immediately improving the accessibility of web content being edited, reducing the effort required of authors, and demonstrating the importance of accessible web content.
B.2.5.3 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AA when used. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.3]
Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.
B.2.5.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.4]
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.
B.2.5.6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.6]
(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and
(b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.
B.2.5.7 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates, then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.5.7]
B.2.5.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.5.8]
B.2.5.9 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selections conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AAA when used. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.5.9]
Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.
PRINCIPLE B.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated
Guideline B.3.1: Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence.
[Implementing B.3.1]
Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring tool, they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they encounter that achieves their intended outcome. Since they may be unaware of the issue of accessibility, it is preferable that accessible web content be an additional unintended outcome, rather than inaccessible content.
Guideline B.3.2: Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available.
[Implementing B.3.2]
Rationale: The accessible content support features will be more likely to be used if they are turned on and are afforded reasonable prominence within the authoring tool user interface.
Guideline B.3.3: Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented.
[Implementing B.3.3]
Rationale: Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.g., prompts for text alternatives, accessibility checking tools), some authors may not be able to use them.
Guideline B.3.4:
Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible.
[Implementing B.3.4]
Rationale: Demonstrating accessible authoring as routine practice will encourage its acceptance by some authors.
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 (in Part A) and (2) how authors should be enabled, supported, and guided towards producing accessible web content (in 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.
Conformance Requirements
In order for an authoring tool to conform to ATAG 2.0, all of the following conformance requirements must be satisfied:
Conformance Levels:
Authoring tools may conform "fully" or "partially" to ATAG 2.0. In either case, the level of conformance depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied.
"Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have considered the accessibility of the authoring tools from both the perspective of authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible) and the perspective of end users of web content produced by the authoring tools (Part B: Support the production of accessible content):
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level A
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the Level A success criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AA
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the Level A and Level
AA success criteria.
- Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AAA
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the success criteria.
And the Part A Applicability Notes and Part B Applicability Notes have been applied.
"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Authoring Tool User Interface: This type of conformance 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):
- 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 implied about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AA:
Authoring Tool User Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
A and Level AA success criteria in Part A. Nothing
is implied about Part B.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AAA:
Authoring Tool User Interface
The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria
in Part A. Nothing is implied about Part B.
And the Part A Applicability Notes have been applied.
"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance:
Content Production: This type of conformance 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):
- 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 implied about Part A.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AA:
Content Production
The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
A and Level AA success criteria in Part B. Nothing
is implied about Part A.
- Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AAA:
Content Production
The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria
in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.
And the Part B Applicability Notes have been applied.
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.
Web Content Technologies Produced:
Authoring tools conform to ATAG 2.0 with respect to the production of specific web content technologies (e.g., Full Level A conformance with respect to the production of XHTML 1.0, Partial Level AA Conformance: Content Production with respect to the production of SVG 1.1).
If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies, then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automatically-generated content or sets as the default for author-generated content. The subset may include "interim" formats that are not intended for publishing to end users, but this is not required.
When Success Criterion B.2.1.1 refers to web content technologies for which the authoring tool provides support for the production of accessible content, it is referring to this subset.
Conformance
Claims (Optional)
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). Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version
of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation.
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.
Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
- Claimant name and affiliation.
- Date of the claim.
- Guidelines title, version and URI
- Conformance level satisfied.
- 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.
- Web content technologies produced.
- A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is including in the conformance claim. 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).
- A list of any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is not including in the conformance claim.
- 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.
- Platform(s): The platform(s) upon
which the authoring tool was evaluated:
Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim
- A description of the authoring tool that identifies the types of editing-views that it includes.
- 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
This section is normative.
This appendix contains definitions for all of the significant/important/unfamiliar terms used in the normative parts of this specification, including terms used in the Conformance section. Please consult http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ for more information on the role of definitions in specification quality.
- accessibility problem
- ATAG 2.0 refers to two types of accessibility problems:
- 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.
- 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
- Web 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
- A picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).
- assistive technology
- 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
- The technology of sound reproduction. Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis), recorded from real world sounds, or both.
- authors
- People who use 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 (see also Part B Applicability Note 5). A person only qualifies as an author of some given
content if (1) the authoring tool supports the relevant web content technology used to implement that
content and (2) the person has author permission for that
content.
- 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.
- 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 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 web 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
- Any software, or collection
of software components, that authors can use to create or modify web content for use by other people.
- 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
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.).
- 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):
- 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, Mac OS, 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.
An accessible
authoring tool user interface is one that meets the success criteria of a level in Part A.
- checking (accessibility)
- 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:
- manual
checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure;
- 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
- automated
checking: where the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by 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.
- content (web content)
- 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, the term is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool. Content produced by authoring tools 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 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.
- content (web content)) properties
- The individual pieces of information that make up the web content (e.g., the attributes and contents of elements, stylesheet information, etc.). While many web content properties have discrete values (e.g., a single value for size, color, font, etc.), some types of web content (especially graphics) may include properties that can be said to encode continuous input because they incorporate frequent data samples (e.g., the location, speed, pressure, angle, etc. of a pointing device) . For example, a freehand line graphic object might have a "continuous" path property that encodes thousands of individual x-y location values, but "discrete" properties for setting the color and thickness of the line. A "watercolor stroke" graphic object might have multiple "continuous" properties (e.g., path, speed, pressure) in order to graphically mimic the diffusion effects that occur when a real paint brush is moved in a similar manner.
- 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. For example, 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 author 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 content has been published, such that the
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 include:
- display settings (audio): the characteristics of
audio output of music, sounds and speech. Examples include volume, speech voices,
voice speed, and voice emphasis.
- display settings (visual): the characteristics of
the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. Examples include fonts, sizes,
colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.
- 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.
- human language
- Language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means) to communicate with humans.
- informative
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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 Mac OSX 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
- 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 web content being edited. Authors generally
choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.
- presentation
- Rendering of the content in a form
to be perceived by authors or end users.
- programmatically determined (programmatically determinable)
- 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:
- 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);
- if item B is emphasized, then so is item A; and
- 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 web 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
- Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content.
- 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: where the repairs are carried out by authors. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure;
- 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
- automated: where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by 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
- 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)
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 web content being edited. ATAG 2.0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing and the way in which they present content:
- editing-views are editable.
- 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:
- as source content in which the unrendered content is presented (e.g., plain text editors),
- as content rendering, and
- 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 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 B: How to refer to ATAG 2.0 from other documents
This section is informative.
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/WAI/AU/2010/ED-ATAG20-20100914/
- 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/WAI/AU/2010/ED-ATAG20-20100914/">
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0,"</a></cite>
J. Richards, J. Spellman, J. Treviranus, eds.,
W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.
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.
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
Appendix Editors:
- Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto)
- Jeanne Spellman (W3C)
- Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
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)
- 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, Dana Simberkoff, Reed Shaffner, 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.