Implementing ATAG 2.0

Intent of Success Criterion A.1.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authoring tool user interfaces that are web-based are accessible to authors with disabilities. Since WCAG 2.0 already provides requirements for the accessibility of web content, including web applications, that document is referenced to avoid replication of requirements. Some success criteria in Part A that are based on WCAG 2.0 may in some cases be more stringent than WCAG 2.0. In most cases, this is because authors need to be able to edit all web content, while certain types of web content (e.g., decoration, invisible content) are not as important to an end user's experience.

Examples of Success Criterion A.1.1.1:

• Web-based authoring tool: A web-based wiki application is designed to conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A. During development, all parts of the user interface (including editing views rendering test content) are tested by the developer using an accessibility evaluation harness for web applications. Periodically, the application is also tested by authors using assistive technologies.
• Web-based help system: A non-web-based authoring tool makes use of a web-based help system. Each page in the help system is based on a template that was designed to conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A (when used) and the developer ensures that each help page passes an accessibility checker before being published. The developer confirms the accessibility of the final help system by spot-checking sample pages.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.1.1.1:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion A.1.1.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

See Implementing Success Criterion A.1.1.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AAA.

Intent of Success Criterion A.1.2.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authoring tool user interfaces that are not web applications are accessible to authors with disabilities. In formulating a requirement that would best fulfill this intent, the Working Group decided upon a requirement to follow and cite the accessibility standards and platform conventions that already exist for many platforms. It was decided that this was the best approach because:

1. the requirement to "cite in the conformance claim", which is published on the Web, would mean reputable developers would refrain from implementing obscure or weak requirements.
2. the "accessibility standards" wording allows developers the scope to harmonize with accessibility legislation in their markets.
3. "platform conventions", by their nature, include platform-specific details such as API calls and look-and-feel examples that generic software guidance cannot.
4. "accessibility standards" and "platform conventions" will continue to progress even after the publication of these guidelines.

Note: Developers should take note of the documents listed in the "Related Resources for Success Criterion A.1.2.1" section, below. Unless extenuating circumstances exist (e.g., a document has been superseded, the platform has undergone major architectural changes), the listed resources should be assumed to be relevant to the platforms listed.

Examples of Success Criterion A.1.2.1:

• WYSIWYG on Mac OS: A WYSIWYG text editor is designed in Cocoa following the Mac OS X accessibility framework including using Accessibility Objects setting attributes for Role, Role Description, Description, Title, Relationship and Value. No custom actions are defined and all actions can be performed through the keyboard. Hit-testing has been implemented to pass current focus to assistive technologies. The recommended and reserved keyboard shortcuts for Apple Human Interface Guidelines and for Mac OS X accessibility are included in the application and not overwritten. The conformance claim includes links to the Accessibility Programming Guidelines for Cocoa and the Accessibility Keyboard Shortcuts as applicable.
  
• Content management system on Windows: A content management system is written to operate on the Windows XP and Vista operating systems following the Microsoft's Active Accessibility. The programs uses IAccessible proxies and only implements IAccessible for controls that are not proxied by OLEACC. The conformance claim includes links to the the applicable Microsoft Developer Network documents.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.1.2.1:

• The following is a non-exhaustive list of accessibility guidelines and best practice documents for various platforms (for information related to Keyboard Shortcuts, see Success Criterion A.3.1.5):
  • Android: Example from Android Developer Reference
  • BlackBerry: BlackBerry Accessibility
  • Eclipse: Designing Accessible Plug-ins in Eclipse
  • Gnome: GNOME Accessibility Developers Guide
  • KDE: Developer's Information
  • Java SE: Java SE Desktop Accessibility
  • Lotus Notes: Lotus Notes checklist
  • Mac OS: Accessibility Overview
  • Microsoft Windows: Accessibility Overview
  • iPhone OS: Accessibility Programming Guide for iPhone OS
  • General Guides:
    • ISO 9241-171:2008 Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 171: Guidance on software accessibility
    • Software Checklist (IBM)

Intent of Success Criterion A.2.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors with disabilities have access to alternative content in the web content that they are editing, because this information can help the authors orient and navigate as they edit. The "recognized" condition acknowledges that "alternative content" may appear in web content in ways that software is not able to detect (e.g., when captions are added directly to the main video track). As per the definition of "recognized", the forms of alternative content that the authoring tool recognizes are to be listed in the conformance claim. Web-based authoring tools will already be required to meet this success criterion as part of a A.1.1.1.

Examples of Success Criterion A.2.1.1:

• WYSIWYG editing view: A WYSIWYG editing view is implemented using a browser component that meets the requirements in the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0 that are relevant to the processing of alternative content (e.g., displaying captions, ensuring alternative text can be programmatically determined).
• Source content editing view: A source content editing view displays plain text alternative content, providing authors with direct access to any alternative content and the ability to edit it directly.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.2.1.1:

• User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0.
• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Guideline 1.1 and Guideline 1.2 and the section Understanding "Text Alternatives".

Intent of Success Criterion A.2.2.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that if the authoring tool makes changes to the display of the web content being edited in order to communicate with authors (e.g., to highlight spelling errors, identify the location of markup tags, etc.), then authors with disabilities will have the same access to that information as other authors.

Examples of Success Criterion A.2.2.1:

• Change tracking feature: A web-based authoring tool includes a change tracking feature that displays inserted text in green and deleted text in red with a strike-through style. Instead of implementing this using simple CSS selectors, the authoring tool uses XHTML elements ins and del are used, since these have semantic meaning.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.2.2.1:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Success Criterion 1.3.1.

Intent of Success Criterion A.2.2.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors with disabilities have access to text presentation information that is available to other authors by editing views. This is important because authors that cannot see still need to understand how their web content will appear to end users who can. This success criterion pertains to the rendered properties of text on the screen, even if the properties differ from the web content being edited. For example, when an author has chosen a custom display settings (as per Success Criterion A.2.3.1).

Examples of Success Criterion A.2.2.2:

• Non-web-based authoring tool:
  A non-web-based authoring tool includes a WYSIWYG editing view that implements the appropriate platform accessibility architecture for its platform. Included in the information passed to the platform accessibility architecture is information on the size, font, foreground and background color, font weight, and position of any rendered text.
• Web-based authoring tool:
  A web-based WYSIWYG authoring tool uses style sheets to control text presentation, enabling the presentation information to be programmatically determined by the user agent (the user agent is cited in the conformance claim).

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.2.2.2:

• For non-web-based authoring tool, see the "Related Resources" for Success Criterion A.1.2.1.

See Implementing Success Criterion A.2.2.2, substituting all text presentation properties that are both rendered and editable by the authoring tool for the four presentation properties listed in A.2.2.2.

Intent of Success Criterion A.2.3.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that the preference display settings that authors set for their own use while they are editing web content are independent of the display settings that are encoded (and eventually published) in the web content being editing.

Examples of Success Criterion A.2.3.1:

• Editing view preferences: A non-web-based WYSIWYG authoring tool has preference settings that enables authors to override the default rendering styles used in the WYSIWYG editing view with the display settings that they have already set in the operating system (e.g., large fonts, high contrast mode, etc.). The preference settings have absolutely no effect on the web content being edited.
• Setting an authoring style sheet: A WYSIWYG authoring tool has preference settings that enable authors to set an "authoring" style sheet. This style sheet is only used to control the rendering of the web content in the authors's editing view. The stylesheet does not make changes to the web content markup being edited and is not published to end users.
• Web-based authoring tool: A web-based authoring tool lets authors customize the appearance of editing views using the preference display settings of the user agent (the user agent is cited in the conformance claim).

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.2.3.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that any authoring tool functionality does not necessarily require the use of a mouse, but instead can be operated using a keyboard or an assistive technology that makes use of a keyboard interface, such as onscreen scanning keyboards and voice recognition systems. The intent of Note 1 is to clarify when the freehand drawing@@ exception applies. The definition of freehand drawing@@ provides important details. The intent of Note 2 is to clarify that rather than replacing other types of interaction, the keyboard access requirement is to provide an alternative.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.1.1:

• Drag-and-drop feature: An authoring tool allows authors to open documents by dragging them into the authoring tool window. The same operation can be performed from the menus using the keyboard.
• Keyboard manipulation of drawing objects: A multimedia authoring tool allows authors to navigate the selection focus between all of the drawing objects on the canvas. Once an object is selected, it can be manipulated with keyboard-driven menu commands, some of which have keyboard shortcuts (e.g., arrow keys to move the object, etc.). New drawing objects can also be added from the keyboard-driven menus.
• Keyboard manipulation of drawing object properties: A multimedia authoring tool does not include keyboard access to the drawing canvas directly, but instead provides a keyboard accessible list of drawing objects that allows a keyboard editable property page to be brought up. The property page includes properties such as "top", "left", "width", "height", "rotation", "label". When these properties are adjusted, the objects on the canvas are updated accordingly. New drawing objects can be added from the keyboard-driven menus.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.1.1:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Success Criterion 2.1.1.

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.1.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that neither the authoring tool's own user interface nor any rendered web content within editing views "traps" keyboard focus. This is a common problem when an interactive object is embedded in the web content. Authors might be able to move focus to the object (e.g., by using the "tab" key), but the authors are then unable to move the focus out using the keyboard, because keyboard control has passed to the embedded application.

The first requirement (a) applies only to the authoring tool user interface, which is the part of the authoring tool that developers have the most control over. In this case, there simply should not be keyboard traps. If authors can move focus to a component using standard keyboard navigation commands (e.g., using the tab key), then they must be able to move focus out of the component in the same way. The second requirement (b) applies to renderings of web content. Because the web content may contain keyboard handlers, the authoring tool may not be able to prevent keyboard traps entirely. Therefore, the requirement is only that the authoring tool be able to restore the keyboard focus to some known location. This known location could be outside of the rendered area (e.g., the menus) or it might be the next rendered element.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.1.2:

• Non-web-based authoring tool: A non-web-based authoring tool has a user interface that has been thoroughly tested by the developer to ensure that no keyboard traps exist. If authors open web content containing keyboard traps in the WYSIWYG editing view, the authoring tool allows authors to restore keyboard focus to the authoring tool's menus at any time using the "alt" keystroke, which the authoring tool never passes to the content being edited.
• Web-based authoring tool: A web-based authoring tool has a user interface that has been thoroughly tested by the developer to ensure that no keyboard traps exist. If authors open web content containing keyboard traps, the authoring tool relies on a feature in the authors' user agent (user agent is cited in the conformance claim) which always restores keyboard focus to the address bar.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.1.2:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Success Criterion 2.1.2.

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.1.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors using a keyboard interface can more easily access commonly used functions of the authoring tool. The wording is intentionally general because the features that require keyboard shortcuts and the number and nature of keyboard shortcuts that are available in various operating environments varies greatly (i.e., desktop systems generally have more keystrokes available to be assigned as shortcuts than mobile devices).

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.1.3:

• Non-web-based authoring tool:
  A non-web-based authoring tool provides keyboard shortcuts for its menu functions as well as access keys in the design of its menus and dialog boxes. The choice of shortcut keys follows platform conventions.
• Social networking application on a mobile device:
  A social networking application on a mobile device has only a very few keyboard shortcuts available on its targeted devices. These few keyboard shortcuts are used for the most commonly accessed functions of the application (e.g., home, list of friends).

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.1.3:

• The following is a non-exhaustive list of keyboard shortcut conventions for various platforms:
  • BlackBerry: UI Guidelines - BlackBerry Smartphones- Best practice: Implementing shortcut keys
  • Gnome: GNOME Human Interface Guidelines 2.2 - Keyboard Interaction
  • Microsoft Windows: Keyboard shorcuts for Windows
  • Eclipse: Eclipse Keyboard Shortcuts
  • Java SE: Java Look and Feel Design Guidelines: Keyboard Operations
  • Lotus Notes: Keyboard shortcuts in Notes 6.x and Notes 7.x
  • Mac OS: Mac OS X keyboard shortcuts

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.1.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to establish an enhanced requirement for keyboard access, without any exceptions. While some "high-end" drawing features, such as a "watercolor painting" tool that continuously sampled the path, pressure and angle of a stylus would be very challenging to make fully keyboard accessible, other less complex functions might be practical. Web-based authoring tools will already be required to meet this success criterion as part of A.1.1.3.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.1.4:

• Keyboard-driven "freehand" drawing: A multimedia authoring tool has a mode that allows "freehand" lines to be drawn in increments, letting the author use the keyboard to choose the angle and length of the next increment, after which the shape is smoothed.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.1.4:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.1.5:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors using a keyboard interface have the ability to remap the authoring tool's keyboard shortcuts in order to avoid keystroke conflicts, use familiar keystroke combinations and optimize keyboard layout (e.g., for one handed use).

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.1.5:

• Non-web-based authoring tool: A non-web-based authoring tool has a keyboard setup utility that lists all of the available keyboard shortcuts and allows authors to associate each with any of the authoring tool's commands (e.g., all of the menu commands).
• Web-based content management system: A web-based content management system has a keyboard setup utility that allows authors to change the access keys that are available during authoring. These access key rebindings are for the authors' use only and do not affect the web content being edited.
• Social networking application on a mobile device: A social networking application has a keyboard setup utility that allows authors to change their keyboard shortcuts for the site. The remapping is saved in site cookies.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.1.5:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.1.6:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors using a keyboard interface have the ability to both discover and be reminded of keyboard shortcuts, while they are using the authoring tool.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.1.6:

• Non-web-based authoring tool: When the author presses a modifier key in a non-web-based authoring tool (e.g., the "Ctrl" key). all of the keyboard shortcuts in the authoring tool user interface are displayed along with any existing text labels or icons.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.1.6:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.2.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that the work that an author has produced is saved in the event that an authoring session is ended due to a time limit (e.g., the timeout of an authenticated authoring session). For web-based authoring tools, this applies to any web content that has already been submitted to the server by the user agent. Reducing the likelihood of lost content edits will benefit all authors, but especially authors with disabilities who may take longer to accomplish authoring tasks.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.2.1:

• Save and continue: A web-based content management system has a "Save and Continue" button that allows authors to continually submit their content edits without requiring them to re-enter the editing view afterwards.
• Wiki: A wiki has an auto-save feature that can be turned on by authors. The auto-save feature always saves before a login timeout.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.2.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.2.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authoring tools provide authors with disabilities adequate time to perform their tasks. Any process that happens without author initiation after a set time or on a periodic basis is a time limit. This includes partial or full updates of the screen (for example, page refresh), or the expiration of a window of opportunity for an author to react to a request for input. It also includes user interface functionality that is advancing or updating at a rate beyond the author's ability to read and/or understand it. In other words, animated, moving or scrolling information introduces a time limit. Generally, turning off time limits is better than customizing the length of time limits, which is better than requesting more time before a time limit occurs. In some cases, however, it is not possible to change the time limit (e.g., a collaborative authoring session) and exceptions are therefore provided for those cases. Web-based authoring tools will already be required to meet this success criterion as part of a Success Criterion A.1.1.1.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.2.2:

• Web-based content management system: A web-based content management system has a login timeout function that automatically logs authors out after 20 minutes of inactivity. One minute before the automatic log out, the system notifies authors that the log out will occur unless the author cancels the notification (meeting (c)). The system also includes a preference setting that lets authors set the timing of the notification up to 10 minutes before the automatic logout (meeting (b)).
• Real-time collaborative editing system: A real-time collaborative editing system allows multiple authors to edit the same web content simultaneously. An integral part of the real-time collaborative activity is that any author may edit or delete what others have just authored (meeting (d)).

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.2.2:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Success Criterion 2.2.1.

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.2.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors are not prevented from using the authoring tool by a requirement for fast reactions.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.2.3:

• Timeline-based authoring tool: A timeline-based interactive web content editor has an indicator of the current position on the timeline that authors can click and drag. When the interactive web content is being previewed, the indicator moves along the timeline, which can make it difficult to target with the mouse. Authors can pause the indicator from moving by selecting the "Stop" or "Pause" buttons.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.2.3:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Success Criterion 2.2.2.

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.2.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure author work is preserved. Reducing the likelihood of lost content edits will benefit all authors, but especially authors with disabilities who may take longer to accomplish authoring tasks.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.2.4:

• Web-based content management system: The system includes an option to turn on asynchronous server communication to constantly save authoring actions into a backup file. If the authoring session ends unexpectedly, the author can retrieve the backup during their next authoring session.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.2.4:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.3.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors with photosensitive seizure disorder can use the authoring tool to open time-based web content without risk. Some people with seizure disorders can have a seizure triggered by flashing visual content.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.3.1:

• Blog: A blogging tool allows authors to import of video files. Authors have the option to turn off an auto-play feature, so that the video files are not played until a "Play" button is activated.
• WYSIWYG web page editor: A WYSIWYG editing view is capable of rendering Javascript in real-time. Authors have the option to turn off the real-time rendering feature, so that the Javascript is not rendered until a "Play" button is activated.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.3.1:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Guideline 2.3.

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.4.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to let authors make use of the structure that may be present in the web content that they are editing to more efficiently edit that web content. This is particularly important when authors are editing large amounts of content. Of course, the editing mechanisms would be contingent on the web content containing the appropriate structure. For example, editing by structure would not be very effective in an HTML document composed of plain text in a pre element.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.4.1:

• WYSIWYG web page editor: A WYSIWYG editing view allows authors to select and manipulate elements as objects. When an element is selected, any content (including sub-elements) of the element are also selected. When authors perform a function a selected element, the scope of the function and the resulting outcome depends on the nature of the function.
  • Some functions target the entire selection (i.e., element, content and sub-elements). For example, when a <table> element is selected and the "delete" operation is performed, the entire table is deleted, including sub-elements (tr and td) and any text content etc. within the table.
  • Some functions only target the top level element of the selection. For example, "strip element tags" deletes the markup of the top level element without affecting its sub-elements or content.
  • Some functions only target the content, including sub-elements of the top level element of the selection without having any affect on the markup of that top level element. For example, “replace contents” is a variant of "paste" in which the sub-elements and content of the selected element are replaced.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.4.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.4.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to help authors using a keyboard interface to navigate more efficiently within structured web content. Because web content technologies differ in the types of structure that they include, developers have flexibility to decide what types of navigation mechanisms to include. The following list contains some possibilities:

1. tree navigation: the ability to move focus to the elements up, down and across tree structures.
2. navigation by headers: the ability to move focus between elements identified as headers in the markup (e.g., h1, h2, etc in HTML4).
3. navigation by element: the ability to move focus between element of the same type or sharing particular attributes.
4. navigation by role: the ability to move focus between elements identified by their roles
5. navigation by accessibility relationships: the ability to move focus between elements bound by accessibility relationships (for attribute of label in HTML4, aria-describedby, etc.).

Of course, the navigation mechanisms would be contingent on the web content containing the appropriate structure. For example, navigation by headers would not be very effective in an HTML document that did not contain headers.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.4.2:

• Source content editing view: A source content editing view supports authors by providing the ability to use keyboard shortcuts to move the focus from any element (e.g., table row) to:
  • the element immediately above (e.g., table),
  • to the first element immediately below (e.g., table data cell),
  • to the element immediately preceding it at the same level (e.g., previous table row),
  • and to the element immediately following it at the same level(e.g., next table row).
• Search by any header element: An authoring tool includes a search function mode that enables authors to search forwards or backwards by "any header element". For example, in HTML4 this would be h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, and h6. When a searched-for header element exists, it is selected in the editing view, enabling authors to immediately edit the element.
• Search by element: An authoring tool includes a search function mode that enables authors to search forwards or backwards by the names of elements. When a searched-for element exists, it is selected in the editing view, enabling authors to immediately edit the element. In addition, the search can be customized to search by attributes, etc.
  Figure: A "Find and Replace" dialog box is shown configured to find the "element" with the name "img", "with attribute" "height" "=" "100" ( where each value in quotation marks is editable). The replacement action is to "set attribute" "height" to "50". The following checkbox options are available "match case", "ignore white space" and "search text alternatives". The dialog box also includes the following buttons "Find Next", "Find all", "Replace", "Replace All", "Close" and "Help". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  
• Outline view: An "outline" or "structure" editing view is provided that organizes structured element sets being edited into a document tree. In this editing view, only the arrow keys are required for navigation between the parent, child and sibling elements.
• Customizing widgets: An authoring tool enables authors to add and customize javascript widgets in its WYSIWYG editing view. Authors can use the keyboard to navigate through the elements that make up the widget in order to set the properties or appearance of the widget. For example, in a slider widget, the keyboard can be used to select the background, the line, the line ticks or the thumb marker of the slider.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.4.2:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.5.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors can efficiently find the web content that they wish to edit. (e.g., switching to a source content editing view to display search results within markup tags)

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.5.1:

• Basic text search: An authoring tool provides both WYSIWYG and source content editing views. The authoring tool provides bi-directional, case sensitive searching for plain text sequences within both editing views.The default search option is to search only within the editing view that the author is currently working within. However, there is an option to search both editing views simultaneously. When this option is selected, the search resuls are all displayed in a selectable list that labels each as "Text" or "Source Code", reflecting which editing view will become active when the author selects the search result.
• Advanced text search: An authoring tool's basic text search feature is augmented by more advanced search options, such as:
  • replacement,
  • wildcard characters,
  • whole word matching,
  • search repetition, and
  • highlighting of all occurrences.
• Metadata editor: A metadata editor provides bi-directional, case sensitive searching for plain text sequences within textual metadata fields (e.g., title, description, author, etc.).

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.5.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.6.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors' preference settings for keyboard and display settings do not need to be reset for each authoring session.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.6.1:

• Storing preferences with author account: A web-based authoring tool requires that authors log in to their accounts before authoring sessions can begin. Because preference settings are associated with the author accounts, the settings are applied as soon as the authors log in.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.6.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.6.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to encourage authoring tools to respect the display and control settings that authors have already specified at the platform level. This reduces the need for authors to repeatedly specify the same preferences. It also means that when an author first opens an authoring tool, they can more easily use the tool. The intention of the note is to remind implementers that there must be independendence between the settings an author chooses for their own work environment and the characteristics they set for the web content that they are editing.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.6.2:

• Desktop high contrast mode: A non-web-based authoring tool defaults to high contrast mode when it detects that the platform is set to high contrast mode.
• Web-based authoring tool: A web-based authoring tool respects the display and control settings of the user agent on which it is running.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.6.2:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.6.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors whose personal preferences vary over time (e.g., due to fatigue) can easily select from a series of pre-set preferences for display and control settings.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.6.3:

• Basic multiple profiles: An authoring tool allows the various configurations of preference settings to be stored as different profiles that authors can switch between at any time. The stored preference settings include all display and control settings that are specific to the authoring tool (i.e., are not controlled by the platform).
• Portable profiles: An authoring tool's basic multiple profiles feature is augmented by the ability for authors to save the profiles as separate files. This allows authors to move configurations between instances of the authoring tool on different systems or to share the configuration files with other authors with similar requirements.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.6.3:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.6.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authoring tools provide assistance to authors in configuring any options related to the accessibility of the user interface. This assistance should include extra assistance resolving any incompatibilities between options (e.g., prevent the same color being used for the foreground and background).

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.6.4:

• Options setting wizard: An authoring tool includes a wizard that takes authors step-by-step through the accessibility options, providing explanations and previews of how the options will change the display. The wizard follows an interview format, first asking authors about general areas (e.g., seeing the screen, using the keyboard) and then becoming more detailed (e.g., text size, text color, etc.).

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.6.4:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.7.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that even if the preview feature makes use of an existing user agent with accessibility problems to meet Success Criterion A.3.7.2, authors will at least be able to exit the preview feature in an accessible way.

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.7.1:

• Preview in a user agent tab: A web-based authoring tool performs previews by opening the web content in a new user agent tab. The user agent (user agent is cited in the conformance claim) includes keyboard shortcuts for returning to the tab that contains the web-based authoring tool.
• Preview in an external user agent: A non-web-based authoring tool performs previews by opening a user agent for the web content to be previewed in. Authors can use standard operating system (the operating system is cited in the conformance claim) keyboard shortcuts for returning to the authoring tool application.
• Preview in a pane: A web-based authoring tool performs previews by opening the web content in a new frame. The user agent (the user agent is cited in the conformance claim) includes keyboard shortcuts for returning focus to the editing view, located in a different frame.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.7.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.3.7.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that preview features strike a balance between giving authors with disabilities an accessible means of previewing the web content that they are editing and not giving those authors an unrealistic impression of how end users with similar disabilities will actually experience that web content in their own user agents (e.g., browser, video player, etc.). In other words, it is not necessarily useful to present a user experience with web content as a "preview" when it is much more accessible than the actual usage of the web content would be in an existing user agent.

The most straightforward way to meet this success criterion is for authoring tools to simply implement preview features using user agents that are already in use by end users - see (a). This might be done in several ways, including by opening the web content in the author's default user agent or by making use of a user agent widget nested within the authoring tool's own user interface. On the other hand, if a preview is being developed that is already a departure from existing user agents, then the W3C User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) must be followed - see (b). At the time of publication, UAAG version 1.0 is a W3C Recommendation and version 2.0 is under development. Note: Developers may develop a preview from scratch that does not meet (b) as long as authors retain the option to preview using their own user agent, since this meets (a).

Examples of Success Criterion A.3.7.2:

• Preview in a user agent: A web-based authoring tool performs previews by opening the web content in a new user agent tab or window.
• Preview in an external user agent: A non-web-based authoring tool performs previews by opening the web content to be previewed in the user's default browser.
• Preview options: Authors have the option of choosing from any of the user agents installed on their computer to perform the preview.
• Preview in a user agent component: A non-web-based authoring tool performs previews using a user agent component that is built directly into the authoring tool.
• Custom built preview: An authoring tool makes use of a custom built preview feature. A User Agent Accessibility Guidelines conformance claim for the preview is included in the conformance claim.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.3.7.2:

• User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) 1.0.

Intent of Success Criterion A.4.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to help authors with disabilities avoid serious consequences in the web content that they are editing as the result of a mistake while performing authoring actions. Everyone makes mistakes. However, people with some disabilities have more difficulty creating error-free input. In addition, it may be harder for them to detect that they have made an error.

Examples of Success Criterion A.4.1.1:

• Non-web-based authoring tool: An authoring tool has an "Undo" action under the "Edit" menu. Activating the undo action reverses the previous action authoring action. Activating "undo" again undoes the previous authoring action and so on.
• Web-based content management system: A web-based content management system supports two types of undo. In the first type of undo, text entry actions into text fields can be undone using the undo feature of the user agent (user agent is cited in the conformance claim). In the second type of undo, "Cancel" buttons are available that allow the author to undo changes that have already been committed. However, to avoid the "Cancel" button being pressed accidentally, authors have the option of having confirmation dialogs displayed when "Cancel" is activated (see Success Criterion A.4.1.3).

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.4.1.1:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Guideline 3.3.

Intent of Success Criterion A.4.1.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to help authors with disabilities avoid making the authoring tool unusable to them as the result of making a mistake while installing the program or modifying preference settings. Everyone makes mistakes. However, people with some disabilities have more difficulty creating error-free input. In addition, it may be harder for them to detect that they have made an error.

Examples of Success Criterion A.4.1.2:

• All reversible: All of the preference setting changes in an authoring tool can be reversed by revisiting the preference setting utility and adjusting the settings.
• Restore defaults: In a preference setting utility, a "restore default settings" button is always available.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.4.1.2:

• For web-based authoring tools, see WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0), especially Guideline 3.3.

Intent of Success Criterion A.4.1.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that an inadvertent "undo" can be reversed, which is sometimes called "re-do". Everyone makes mistakes. However, people with some disabilities have more difficulty creating error-free input. In addition, it may be harder for them to detect that they have made an error.

Examples of Success Criterion A.4.1.3:

• Web-based content management system: In the "Web-based content management system" example in Success Criterion A.4.1.1, the content management system supports two ways of reversing undo actions. In the first, the redo feature of the user agent (user agent is cited in the conformance claim) can be used to redo text entry that has been reversed with the user agent's undo feature. In the second, confirmation dialogs let the user reverse "Cancel" actions that would discard content changes.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.4.1.3:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.4.2.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors with disabilities that need to use the accessibility features of the authoring tool user interface can easily find specific instruction in the documentation. The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.

Examples of Success Criterion A.4.2.1:

• Accessibility features documented: An authoring tool includes a help system that is always available to authors, is searchable by keyword and is also linked in context from the various features within the authoring tool. The documentation conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level A and includes the following topics grouped together into an "Accessibility Features" chapter in the help system:
  • how to customize display settings
  • what keyboard shortcuts are available, including navigation keys
  • how to customize keyboard shortcuts
  • how to avoid keyboard traps
  • how to extend time limits
  • how to use the search features
  • how to undo/redo
  • how to set accessibility-related options, such as turning off auto-play

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.4.2.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion A.4.2.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors who need additional support to learn to operate an authoring tool can easily access instructions. The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and Guideline A.1.2.

Examples of Success Criterion A.4.2.2:

• All features documented: An authoring tool includes documentation for all of its features.

Related Resources for Success Criterion A.4.2.2:

• "Software Documentation" on Wikipedia

Intent of Success Criterion B.1.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors who have the motivation and knowledge to create accessible web content using an authoring tool are not prevented from doing so. The subsequent success criteria in Part B will build on this minimal requirement. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.1.1.1:

• Accessible workflow exists: An authoring tool is designed such that accessible web content (conforming to WCAG 2.0 Level A) will result if authors do all of the following:
  • turn on all features that support the production of accessible content; and
  • correctly follow all prompts by features that support the production of accessible content; and
  • uses the accessibility checker, including a final check prior to publishing; and
  • correctly perform any manual checks suggested by the accessibility checker; and
  • correctly repair all of the automatically, semi-automatically or manually identified web content accessibility problems using the automated, semi-automated and manual repair assistance that the authoring tool provides.
• Source content editing view: An authoring tool is designed around a source content editing view, allowing motivated and knowledgeable authors to control every detail of the web content produced, including following accessible authoring practices.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.1.1.1:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion B.1.1.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

See Implementing Success Criterion B.1.1.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AAA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.1.2.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that, whenever technically possible, any accessibility information that authors have made the effort to include in web content is still available to end users after the web content has been transformed within a web content technology or converted into another web content technology. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.1.2.1:

• Similar data structures: A conversion tool preserves accessibility information in similar data structures, whenever possible. For example:
  • when converting between HTML and SVG, the contents of alt attributes are stored in desc attributes
  • when saving a word-processor format to markup, headings and list items are transformed into appropriate structural markup
• Dissimilar but accessible: A conversion tool preserves accessibility information in a dissimilar, but accessible way, when similar data structures are not available. For example:
  • when transforming a SMIL presentation with a closed-caption text track into a video-only format, authors have the option of converting the closed captions into open-captions encoded in the video file
  • when transforming a table to a list, table headings are transformed into headings and summary or caption information is retained as rendered text content
  • when saving a word-processing format to markup, specialized document features (i.e., footnotes, endnotes, call-outs, annotations, references, etc.) are retained as rendered text content with two-way linking.
• Authors control: A conversion tool allows authors to augment the accessibility of their web content by setting conversion rules to specify how patterns of presentation markup can be converted into structural markup and stylesheet information.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.1.2.1:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

Intent of Success Criterion B.1.2.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to address situations in which, for technical reasons, accessibility information cannot be preserved in the end product of transformations or conversions. such that it can be accessed by end users. In these case, the accessibility information, which was provided at some effort by an author at some point in time should still be preserved (as a backup, etc.) to allow the accessibility information to be retrieved by the author (at any time) or possibly by end users (if technologies progress). WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.1.2.2:

• Make backup of accessibility info: An authoring tool automatically archives a backup copy of the original web content, if accessibility information will be lost, and notifies the author of both the location of the backup copy and the fact that the new web content will not be available to any end users who need the accessibility information.
• Warning when text is converted to graphics: A conversion tool includes the ability to convert textual formats into graphics. However, if this option is selected by authors, they are warned that the output will have web content accessibility problems. They are also advised that style sheets are preferable for presentation control. If authors continue, the conversion tool suggests retaining the original text as alternative content for the graphical output.
• Auto-check after transformation: If authors choose to proceed with a transformation that includes an accessibility warning (see (b)), then an accessibility check is immediately run on the output.
• Transformation undo: If authors choose to proceed with a transformation that includes an accessibility warning (see (b)), then an option to undo the transformation is available.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.1.2.2:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

Intent of Success Criterion B.1.2.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to set out an enhanced preservation requirement (at Level AA) in which authoring tools only offer authors transformations and/or conversions that preserve accessibility information that will be needed to make the end product accessible. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.1.2.3:

• Preserving secondary audio tracks: A multimedia authoring tool is capable of converting video formats that include secondary audio tracks, that may contain audio descriptions, into video formats that support only one audio track. In these cases, the author is provided with options to preserve the information in the secondary audio track by either (1) combining the two audio tracks into the one remaining audio track or (2) moving the secondary audio track into a separate audio file that is associated with the resulting video file using SMIL.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.1.2.3:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

Intent of Success Criterion B.1.2.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that accessibility information, such as structural or alternative content, is not inadvertently lost. The approach taken is that unless the authoring tool can detect that web content is not accessibility information, it must provide authors with options to receive notification prior to deleting the web content or to not delete the web content.

Examples of Success Criterion B.1.2.4:

• Avoid deleting content: An authoring tool does not automatically delete any author-generated content.
• Avoid deleting accessibility information: An authoring tool detects and then avoids deleting author-generated content that is accessibilityinformation.
• Conform or override removal: An authoring tool that may delete author-generated content provides authors with the option to confirm or override removal of web content either on a change-by-change basis or as a batch process.
• Option to cancel: A markup editor has a feature that that automatically removes any attributes or elements that do not appear in the defined DTD when web content is opened for editing. Upon activation, the feature notifies authors that web content will be deleted with unknown effects for end users. The authors have the option to cancel the operation, in which case the web content will not be opened for editing.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.1.2.4:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.1.3.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that when authoring tools have been designed to take over responsibility from authors in determining aspects of web content that are important for accessibility, that the web content that is actually produced meets WCAG 2.0 Level A by default. If this was not the case, authoring tools could continually introduce web content accessibility problems that authors would then need to check for and repair. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

The note is intended to make it clear that this success criterion applies to "good faith" efforts by authoring tool developers. These guidelines do not contain any requirement that authors be forced to provide accessibility information, although some constrained use cases (e.g., government or corporate settings) may take that approach. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.1.3.1:

• Markup behind WYSIWYG: A WYSIWYG web page authoring tool provides authors with a toolbar of options for formatting text. Following the WYSIWYG (what-you-see-is-what-you-get) paradigm, the options are labeled with the visual result (e.g., a bold "B" to represent bold, an italicized "I" to represent italics, etc.) of performing the action however, the content that is automatically generated from those actions actually conforms to WCAG 2.0 (e.g., using strong for bold and em for emphasis).
• Automatic generation with author input: An online photo album allows authors to upload images and then automatically generates content to display the images. Since the album application is not able to automatically generate alternative content for the images that meets WCAG 2.0, the authors are prompted for this information.
• Documentation: An authoring tool that employs automatic web content generation documents the accessibility of this functionality with reference to particular WCAG 2.0 techniques.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.1.3.1:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion B.1.3.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

See Implementing Success Criterion B.1.3.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AAA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to help authors make decisions about which web content technologies to use that are informed by accessibility considerations. If accessibility is part of decision-making at this early point, it will reduce the likelihood that retrofits for accessibility will be required later on. The wording "the authoring tool provides authors with a choice" is intended to rule out situations in which authors make technology choices without guidance by the authoring tool (e.g., by hand coding, by specifying a DTD).

In (a), the wording "general information about the accessibility of the technology to end users" is intended to encompass possibilities such as: authoring techniques for that technology, accessibility features or limitations of the technology, the availability of user agents for that technology, etc. In (c), the wording "alternative included technologies (if available)" is intended to refer to the other choices that the authoring tool is making available. If no included technology options are being offered by the authoring tool or the included options are not appropriate alternatives to the technology in question, then information on alternatives would not be needed.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.1:

• Choosing video formats: A video authoring tool can be used to author three video formats: (1) an old video format that does not include text tracks, (2) a newer video format that has one text track and widespread support in players and (3) a very new multi-text track video format that currently has limited support in players. The authoring tool includes a built-in closed captioning utility for the newer format whereas captions can only be added to the older video format using a third party tool that adds them as open captioning. When author saves a new video file, the "Save As" dialog provides the three video formats are provided as choices. When focus moves to a format in the dialog an information area in the dialog briefly notes accessibility information (and other information, such as compression effectiveness) with links to more information in the documentation. For (1), it is noted that the built-in closed captioning utility will not be available and that captions are required for WCAG conformance. The (linked) further information notes that only open captioning is possible in this format and only using a third party tool. For (3), it is noted that player support is limited, which may limit access by some end users. The (linked) further information includes links to an "Accessibility Information" page maintained by the company that developed the new video format.
• Choosing between calendar widgets: An author, using a content management system, adds a date field. The system prompts the user to choose a calendar widget that will appear to the end-user when they use the date field. All of the choices that conform to WCAG 2.0 are labeled as accessible with links to more accessibility information provided by the makers of the widgets. Choices that do not conform include warnings to the author.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.1.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.1.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that if authoring tools only allow authors the ability to modify a subset of the properties of a content element, then the properties required for conformance to WCAG 2.0 are included in that subset.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.2:

• Context sensitive properties: A markup authoring tool includes a context sensitive properties pane that displays property fields for the most common subset of attributes associated with the markup element that currently has focus in the editing view. The attributes that are required for WCAG 2.0 are included in the subset.
  Figure: An "Image Properties" dialog box in which the input fields are ordered (from top to bottom, left to right): source ("src"), short label ("alt"), long description ("longdesc"), height, and width. The buttons at the bottom are "More...", "OK" and "Cancel". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.1.2:

• Appendix A: Gathering Accessibility Information from Authors
• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

Intent of Success Criterion:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that when web content technologies can only be imported or integrated (but not edited), authoring tools still provide a mechanism for associating needed accessibility information. Many authoring tools make a distinction between technologies that the authoring tool uses to edit web content and technologies that can only be imported or integrated. For example, most HTML editors can insert images into web pages without the ability to edit the images. In situations where web content is imported or integrated that cannot be edited, the authoring tool can support accessibility by inserting or associating accessibility information using technologies that it does have the ability to edit.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.1.3:

• Time-based media alternatives: A SMIL authoring tool lets authors create multimedia presentations by pulling together video, audio and timed text objects on to a timeline, even though the tool has no built-in ability to edit these objects. When authors specify information about video to be inserted, they are also provided with the opportunity to associate a timed text object (for captions), an audio object (for audio description) and a secondary video (for sign language interpretation). When authors specify information about audio to be inserted, they are also provided with the opportunity to associate a timed text object (for captions) and a video (for sign language interpretation).
• Data table for a bar graph: A learning content management system has a feature that lets authors insert figures. The feature accepts images, even though the authoring tool has no built-in ability to edit images, but as part of the "figure properties" the authors can identify the figure as a graph. If they choose this option, then the system assists the authors in creating an accompanying data table using the values used to create the graph.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.1.3:

• See definition of "conforming alternate versions".

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors are supported in discovering web content accessibility problems in the web content that they are editing. This is critical if these issues are to be addressed prior to publishing. The requirement to individually check WCAG 2.0 success criteria is intended to prevent manual checks from being worded in excessively general ways (e.g., "does the page meet all of the requirements?"). The success criterion does not specify how multiple instances of the same problem should be handled, because this will usually depend on the nature of the problem and the degree of automation in the checking and repair features of the authoring tool. Some problems are limited to one or just a few elements and lend themselves to automated or semi-automated reporting of each instance (e.g., missing labels), while other problems extend across many elements and are sometimes best checked globally (e.g., reading level, etc.).

The note about manual checking is intended to recognize that the current state of technology does not allow every web content accessibility problem to be identified automatically. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.1:

• Markup processing checker: An accessibility checking tool includes automated checking for web content accessibility problems that can be detected from markup alone. The tool includes semi-automated checking where potential instances can be detected from the markup but where an Implementing of the content is required to make a final decision. In cases where markup processing is of little or no use in detecting problems, manual instructions are included for authors to follow in identifying whether the relevant WCAG 2.0 success criterion has been met.
• Content processing checker: An accessibility checking tool goes beyond markup processing by applying content processing heuristics, such as:
  • Image processing to detect whether foreground and background contrast levels are sufficient or whether images are blank.
  • Text processing to calculate reading levels and detect changes in human language.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.1:

• Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.
• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that accessibility checking is an integral part of the normal workflow of authoring tools, similar to checking for other content issues (e.g., spelling, syntax, validation, security). If authors are made aware of the web content accessibility problems in their web content as a normal part of their workflow, the issues are more likely to be repaired before the web content is published. Through this process, authors will become more aware of accessible authoring practices.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.2:

• Check-as-you-type: An authoring tool continuously checks the web content being edited and highlights problems as the authors work.
  Figure: A WYSIWY authoring tool is shown with check-as-you-type accessibility checking activated. Two elements on the page have been highlighted as having problems: an image is surrounded by a blue squiggly line and a line of text is underlined by the same style of blue squiggly line. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  
  
• Checking on demand: An authoring tool provides accessibility checking from a menu item that is always available.
• Prompt to check before publishing: An authoring tool automatically performs an accessibility check if authors choose to close or publish the web content and informs the authors of the results.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.2:

• Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors, who in many cases will lack accessibility knowledge, will be able to make adequate judgments. If this is not the case, authors may miss web content accessibility problems that do exist and/or mistakenly identify problems that do not exist.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.3:

• Questions answered: Instructions are formulated to answer the following questions: "What part of the content should be examined?" and "What is present or absent that is causing the problem?".
• Variety of views: When author judgment would be enhanced by modified views of the web content being edited, an accessibility browser toolbar is used to provide various previews, such as:
  • an alternative content view (with images and other multimedia replaced by any alternative content)
  • a monochrome view (to test contrast)
  • a text to speech view (to test the availability of text alternatives)
  • no scripts view
  • no frames view
  • no style sheet view
• Judgments saved: An authoring tool saves author judgments for manual checks and only prompts for new judgments after the author has made substantial changes.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.3:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to increase the accuracy of author judgments by identifying the location of suspected web content accessibility problems as precisely as possible.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.4:

• By line number: An authoring tool displays potential problems in a separate pane by the line number of the first element involved.
• Underlining: A source content editing view displays potential problems in-line by underlining all of the markup for the affected span of elements.
• Outlining: A WYSIWYG editing view displays potential problems in-line with the rendered content in the WYSIWYG editing view as blue outlining around the affected span of elements.
• Site-wide checking: A web site managing software is designed to identify issues on a site-wide scale (e.g., broken links, outdated information). The software also includes a feature to detect site-wide accessibility problems. The feature is able to identify faulty templates, widgets, etc. that can cause systematic problems.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.4:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion B.2.2.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 level AA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.6:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that an overview of the accessibility status of web content is present to enable authors to assess their repair options, monitor progress and manage reporting.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.6:

• List of accessibility problems: The checking feature of an authoring tool provides a single consolidated list of all of the detected web content accessibility problems. Direct links are provided to additional help and repair assistance for each type of accessibility problem.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.6:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.7:

The intent of this success criterion is to encourage interoperability between checking and repair, even when more seamless checking and repair workflows (which are usually preferable) are not possible for whatever reason. Saving the status in a human-readable format facilitates manual repair as well as monitoring progress and managing reporting.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.7:

• Save out accessibility status: An accessibility checker has an accessibility status feature (in order to meet Success Criterion B.2.2.6) that lists the web content accessibility problems in the web content along with the line number of the first element involved. This feature has a "save" function that allows list of problems to be saved out as a text file.
• Web-based checker: A web-based accessibility checker has an accessibility status feature (in order to meet Success Criterion B.2.2.6) that lists the web content accessibility problems in the web content along with the line number of the first element involved. The page can then be saved using the "save" function in the user agent (that is cited in the conformance claim).

Related Resources Success Criterion B.2.2.7:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.8:

The intent of this success criterion is to facilitate the creation of accessibility metadata that can be used some content management systems to match end user accessibility preferences with suitably designed web content.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.8:

• Saving AccessForAll: An accessibility checker has an accessibility status feature (in order to meet Success Criterion B.2.2.6) that lists the web content accessibility problems in the web content. The feature provides an option of storing accessibility status information using the IMS AccessForAll Meta-data mechanism.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.8:

• The IMS AccessForAll Meta-data standard is one way to store the accessibility attributes of web content in order to match them with the preferences of users. This system is also the basis for ISO 24571 (Individualized adaptability and accessibility in e-learning, education and training).
• The Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) is a machine-readable format for expressing test results.
• Google Accessible Search is an example of accessible resource discovery.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.2.9:

The intent of this success criterion is the same as for Success Criterion B.2.2.8 except that for B.2.2.9 the information is to be provided in a machine-readable format, which facilitates automated repair and semi-automated repair.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.2.9:

• Saving EARL: An accessibility checker has an accessibility status feature (in order to meet Success Criterion B.2.2.6) that lists the web content accessibility problems in the web content. In addition to the text file "save' function (in order to meet Success Criterion B.2.2.7), the feature provides authors with the option of storing the accessibility status information using the Evaluation and Repair Language.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.2.9:

• Evaluation and Repair Language

See Implementing Success Criterion B.2.2.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 level AAA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.3.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors are given a method to repair identifiable web content accessibility problems. Allowing manual repair assistance to meet this success criterion is intended to take into account the difficulty of automatically or semi-automatically repairing certain types of accessibility problems. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.3.1:

• Check-as-you-type: An authoring tool includes a check-as-you-type feature (see also Example for Success Criterion B.2.2.2) that provides context sensitive repair.
  Figure: A WYSIWYG editing view is shown, in which a table is being edited. The first row of the table is highlighted in blue "squiggly" lines because a checking heuristic has detected that it might actually be a header row. The author has right clicked on the outlined area and a pop-up menu gives them several repair options: "Repair: Set as header row", "Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility..." and "Help...".
  
• Combined check-repair feature: A WYSIWYG web page authoring tool includes an accessibility check and repair feature that presents web content accessibility problems and repair options in a sequential manner analogous to a typical spelling or grammar checking "wizard". Each screen provides input field(s) for the information required to address the issue as well as additional information and tips that authors may require in order to properly provide the requested information.
  Figure: A correction interface is shown for repairing missing alternate text label for an image. The interface includes (1) a short description of the problem (here: "Missing Alternate Text Label for an Image"), (2) a preview (here: the "earthrise" image that is missing a label), (3) tips for performing the repair (here: "Alternate text should be 10 words or less and should include any text in the image."; "Image buttons should have alternate text that describes the button function."; and "Image bullets should have "bullet" as alternate text."), and (4) an offered semi-automated repair in an editable drop-down box (here: "An earth rise as seen from the moon"). The global checker controls include a progress indicator ("5 of 25") and navigation buttons to move backwards ("back") and forwards ("skip") through the list of repair tasks. Buttons to "repair", get "help" and "cancel" are also provided. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  
• Manual repair instructions: For each potential accessibility problem identified by the checking function (required for Success Criterion B.2.2.1), documentation with repair instructions is provided that an author (with sufficient skill and knowledge to use the rest of the tool) could follow to correct the problem.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.3.1:

• Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation And Repair Tools (AERT)
• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion B.2.3.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

See Implementing Success Criterion B.2.3.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AAA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.4.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors can add alternative content for non-text content and modify that alternative content in the future. If the type of alternative content (e.g., alternative text) is not typically displayed on screen by user agents, then WYSIWYG editing views may not display it. This is acceptable as long as another mechanism is provided for modifying that content.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.4.1:

• Source content editing view: In a source content editing view, alternative content within the source is always available, regardless of what user agents might render. If alternative content is referenced from an external location (e.g., HTML4 longdesc), then that resource can be opened for editing.
• Properties dialog: In a WYSIWYG editing view, alternative content is not displayed, since the editing view is designed to mimic typical user agents. However, the alternative content can be accessed and edited via a properties editor that displays the properties for the content that currently has focus.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.4.1:

• Understanding WCAG 2.0, especially the section Understanding "Text Alternatives".

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.4.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to prevent the production of alternative content that is not useful to an end user because it has not been approved by an author and/or it is derived from unreliable sources. The requirement of author control enables knowledgeable authors to have the final say on alternative content suggested by authoring tools. The limitation to relevant sources is intended to reduce the possibility that authors who are unfamiliar with accessibility may approve alternative content suggestions without Implementing the problems these can cause for end users.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.4.2:

• Metadata on an archive: A content management system includes a feature that allows authors to make use of images from an extensive photographic archive. The photographic archive includes metadata for each photograph with title and description fields. The title field is always filled, but the description field is sometimes lacking. When an author selects an image for insertion, the metadata title is suggested as the alternative text label and the metadata description (if any) is suggested as the long description. In both cases, some basic guidance on what constitutes correct alternative content is provided to help authors judge the appropriateness of the suggestions.
• Alternative content registry: A web page authoring tool implements an alternative content registry (see also Success Criterion B.2.4.4). Since the alternative content was gathered from authors' previous entries into the same fields for the same objects, these are acceptable as relevant sources. The authors are still given the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested alternative content prior to insertion, in case the non-text content is being used in a different context.
• Accepting patterns: An authoring tool allows authors to accept patterns of future uses of an alternative content under certain conditions (e.g., whenever the same non-text content is marked with the same semantic role).

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.4.2:

• Understanding WCAG 2.0, especially the section Understanding "Text Alternatives".

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.4.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to address situations in which an author has either not noticed or ignored opportunities for adding alternative content and has ended their authoring session. ATAG 2.0 does not require authoring tools to attempt automated repairs in this situation because doing so risks misleading accessibility checking tools and end users into the assumption that the alternative content was either provided or approved by an author. However, if developers do want to provide automated assistance to end users, then this success criterion specifies what types of repairs may be provided. Essentially:

1. Basic "text" processing repairs using information that is equally available to user agents (e.g., file name, text metadata within non-text objects, the title of a linked resource, etc.) are not allowed, because they are best performed by user agents and assistive technologies.
2. Repairs are allowed when authoring tools have contextual information (e.g., the image is the author's profile picture) that user agents do not have equal access to.
3. Repairs are also allowed that go beyond simple text processing to directly processing images, audio or video. The intent here is to encourage progress in these rapidly advancing fields.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.4.3:

• Contextual information is known: A social networking authoring tool allows authors to add a description of their profile picture. If the author chooses not to provide a description, the authoring tool labels the image as the author's profile picture.
• Contextual information is not known: A web page authoring tool allows authors to insert images. If an author ignores opportunities to add alternative content and then ends the authoring session, the authoring tool has access to information such as the file name of the image, but since this is text information that is equally available to user agents, it is not suggested.
• Auto-generated transcript: An on-line video editing and hosting authoring tool has a feature that allows authors to create transcripts or captions for their videos. The author can begin by copying in a transcript if one is available or the authoring tool can use voice recognition technology to generate a transcript for the author to correct. While this is preferred, the authoring tool also has a setting in which it will automatically add the auto-generated transcript to the published presentation if the end user requests this and the author has not made an attempt to add their own captions or transcript.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.4.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that when the author has spent effort providing alternative content, this content is retained by the authoring tool in a form that allows it be easily reused.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.4.4:

• Alternative content registry: An authoring tool includes a registry that associates object identity information with alternative content (i.e., text, URIs). Whenever an object is used and any alternative content is collected, the object's identifying information and the alternative content is added to the registry. The stored alternative content is suggested as alternative content for author approval whenever the associated object is inserted. The alternative content registry allows several different versions of alternative content to be associated with a single object (e.g., various translations, various contexts).
  Figure: The interface of a sample alternative content registry viewer is shown. The design takes into account multiple non-text content objects of the same name, multiple types of text equivalents for each non-text content object, and multiple versions of each text equivalent type. In the viewer shown here, the author has selected "image" as the "media type" and then selected pic123.gif as the "content" to edit. This has brought up a rendering of the "earthrise" image. The viewer also shows that the content has three text labels. The author has selected one ("An earth rise as seen from the moon") in order to edit it. In addition some authoring tips are included ("Alternate text should be 10 words or less and should include any text in the image", "Image buttons should have alternate text that describes the button function.", and "Image bullets should have "bullet" as alternate text."(Source: mockup by AUWG)
  
• Interoperability with pre-authored content: An enterprise authoring tool's clip art system is integrated with an alternative content registry so that new alternative content created by any author on the enterprise system is stored alongside the pre-authored alternative content for the images in the system. The keyword search feature of the clip art system makes use of any alternative content to retrieve matches.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.4.4:

• Understanding WCAG 2.0, especially the section Understanding "Text Alternatives".

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.5.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that when authoring tools select templates or pre-authored content for the author(s) or automatically generate web content from a template, then the web content conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level A by default. If this was not the case, authoring tools could continually introduce accessibility problems that authors would likely not be able to repair. The note is intended to make it clear that this success criterion takes into account that templates are, by their nature, incomplete. In addition, templates are often stored in forms quite different than the final web content that they are used to produce . WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.5.1:

• Content management system: A content management system offers a variety of templates to authors for different purposes (e.g., information page, interactive form page, registration page, etc.). All of the templates have passed WCAG 2.0 Level A accessibility evaluations when filled in with sample content by authors who follow all of instructions provided.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.5.1:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.5.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to reduce the possibility that authors will be forced to use inaccessible templates to create web content because accessible templates do not exist.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.5.2:

• Variety of accessible templates: A web page authoring tool provides several template choices for home pages, guest books and on-line albums. For each type of functionality, the basic template option is accessible.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.5.2:

• N/A

See Implementing Success Criterion B.2.5.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.5.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors can easily determine the accessibility status of templates prior to selecting them and that author is more likely to notice the accessible template options.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.5.4:

• Template names include accessibility status: In a wiki system, creating a new page brings up a list of available templates. Each template has its WCAG 2.0 conformance level included in its name (e.g., "slide show template - wcagA").
• Sort by accessibility status: A template repository lists the available templates and provides the templates' accessibility status as a sortable field.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.5.4:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.5.5:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that new templates that authors create and which might be used by subsequent authors interoperate with the relevant template selection mechanism.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.5.5:

• Save as template: An authoring tool provides a "save as template" feature. When authors activates this feature, the authoring tool automatically runs an accessibility checker on the template with sample data. Once the checker returns a resulting accessibility status, the author has the option of labeling the template with this status. If the template fails to conform to WCAG 2.0 with sample data, then the author is advised that templates should be held to a high accessibility standard, since they will be repeatedly reused.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.5.5:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion B.2.5.4, substituting "pre-authored content" for "templates".

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.5.7:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that all templates that the authoring tool provides include an accessibility status. This is not a requirement that all templates meet any particular accessibility level.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.5.7:

• Template repository: A web page authoring tool provides several template choices for home pages, guest books and on-line albums. All of the templates are labeled with an accessibility level (i.e., conforming to WCAG 2.0 Level A, Level AA or Level AAA when used as directed).

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.5.7:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.2.5.8:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that all pre-authored content that the authoring tool provides include an accessibility status. This is not a requirement that all pre-authored content meet any particular accessibility level.

Examples of Success Criterion B.2.5.8:

• Clip art collection: An authoring tool is shipped with a clip art collection. Each image in the collection has a short text label and long text description and the system is interoperable with the alternative content registry, so that whenever the author inserts an image from the clip art collection, its alternative content is automatically retrieved.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.2.5.8:

• See Success Criterion B.2.4.4

See Implementing Success Criterion B.2.5.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AAA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.1.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to help ensure that accessible authoring practices are part of the default workflow of authoring tools. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.1.1:

• Only accessible options: A WYSIWYG editing view does not include any author options that will necessarily result in in web content that will not conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A..
• De-emphasizing problematic options: A WYSIWYG editing view emphasizes more accessible choices with a higher position in the menus and a position in user interface shortcuts such as toolbars. Choices that always lead to less accessible web content are de-emphasized with lower menu position.
  Figure: An authoring tool that supports two methods for setting text color: using CSS and using font. Since using CSS is the more accessible option, it is given a higher prominence within the authoring interface by: (1) the "CSS Styling" option appearing above the "FONT Styling" option in the drop down Text menu, and (2) the CSS styling option being used to implement the one-click text color formatting button in the tool bar. The association is made clear because the toolbar button has the same icon (an "A" beside a color spectrum) as the "Color" sub-menu item under the "CSS Styling" menu option.). An (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.1.1:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion B.3.1.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

See Implementing Success Criterion B.3.1.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AAA.

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.2.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to help ensure that the accessible content support features are perceived by authors (and developers) as a natural and expected part of the authoring tool workflow, just as features for addressing spelling, grammar and syntax errors already are.

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.2.1:

• On by default: A web page authoring tool has all accessible content support features turned on by default within the "Accessibility" tab of its preferences area.
  Figure: The preference setting area of an authoring tool, open to an "Accessibility" section, shows the default settings. "W3C-WCAG" and a level (e.g. "Double-A") are selected as are the following options: "Check accessibility as you type", "Check accessibility after saving", "Auto-correct when possible", "Highlight accessibility related fields", "Prompt when highlighted fields are left blank", and "Provide accessibility 'Quick Tips'". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.2.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.2.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that if authors turns off accessible content support features for any reason, they can easily turn them back on.

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.2.2:

• Toggle in preferences area: A web page authoring tool provides an "Accessibility" tab in its preferences area (See Figure for Success Criterion B.3.2.1, above) where any deactivated features can be reactivated.
• Reminders: An authoring tool has a "wizard"-style accessibility checker and a "check-as-you-type"-style accessibility checker. If the "check-as-you-type"-style checker has been turned off, the author is reminded about the feature and provided with an option to turn it back on whenever they run the "wizard"-style checker.

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.2.2:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.2.3:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that if authors attempt to turn off an accessible content support feature for any reason, they will have the opportunity to understand the effect this will have on the accessibility of the web content that they produce.

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.2.3:

• Warning: An authoring tool provides the author with a warning whenever an accessible content support feature is turned off (e.g., from the authoring tool preferences area.
  Figure: In an authoring tool, the author has unchecked a "highlighting accessibility related fields" feature the tool. As a result the tool displays a warning that reads "You have just turned off the highlighting accessibility related fields feature. This feature is designed to inform you when information must be provided in order for your documents to comply with your target accessibility setting. Turning this feature off could cause your documents to be less accessible to many users. In some jurisdictions accessibility is a legal requirement. Are you sure you want to proceed?". The author has the option to answer "Yes", "No" or "Cancel". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.2.3:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.2.4:

The intent of this success criterion is to help ensure that authors are as likely to notice and use functions for addressing accessibility problems as functions for addressing other web content issues (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors).

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.2.4:

• Prominence of checking and repair: An authoring tool includes a pane dedicated to to content "Evaluation and Repair". The pane lists accessibility, grammar, link checking, spelling, and syntax validation. When the various utilities are run, their results are displayed in similar ways within the pane.
• Prominence of documentation: An authoring tool includes documentation of its accessibility checker as part of the main documentation of an authoring tool, with very similar prominence to that of the spelling-related features.
  Figure: A help system is shown. In the right pane is the documentation table of contents, where "Accessibility Features" appears as a top level topic just below "Spelling Features". In the left panel is the help text, demonstrating a style typical of the rest of the help system: "Checking for Accessibility: A variety of accessibility checking options are available: Accessibility verifier, Check accessibility as you type, Manual test support materials. These are suitable for use at different times during the authoring process and all have options that can be changed with the accessibility preferences. To get more information on accessible web content, see the References.". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.2.4:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.3.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to help ensure that authors are able to find help on how to use use the accessible content support features effectively.

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.3.1:

• Documentation of accessible content support features: An authoring tool's help system documents the accessible content support features as it would other features of the authoring tool. Since the authoring tool includes context-sensitive help, this is is also provided for the accessible content support features.
• Short and long versions of help: During prompting and repairs, an authoring tool provides authors with immediate access to some basic accessibility documentation and one-step access to more comprehensive documentation.
  Figure: An accessibility checker includes some limited tips for authoring short text labels listed beneath the text entry area as well as a "Help" button linking to the full documentation. The tips are: "Alternate text should be 10 words or less and should include any text in the image.", "Image buttons should have alternate text that describes the button function.", and "Image bullets should have 'bullet' as alternate text.". The screen shot also includes the name of the problem ("Missing Alternate Text Label for an Image"), a field for adding the short text label and a preview rendering of the image ("earthrise"). At the bottom are five buttons: "Help", "< Back", "Repair", "Skip", and "Cancel". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
  

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.3.1:

• N/A

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.3.2:

The intent of this success criterion is to ensure that authors that learn best through tutorials are exposed to accessibility best practices specific to the authoring tool.

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.3.2:

• Accessibility tutorial: A web page authoring tool includes built-in tutorials demonstrating several multi-step tasks (e.g., setting up the folders and files for the local version of a website, formatting with CSS, etc.). One of the tutorials describes how to use the accessible content support features of the authoring tool to increase the accessibility of the web content produced. The tutorial begins at the typical starting point for the tool (e.g., empty document). The tutorial also covers when and how checking and repair should be performed. The tutorial includes some basic rationales for accessible content production. These rationales emphasize the importance of accessibility for a wide range of content consumers, from those with disabilities to those with alternative viewers (see "Auxiliary Benefits of Accessibility Features", a W3C-WAI resource).

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.3.2:

• Auxiliary Benefits of Accessibility Features

Intent of Success Criterion B.3.4.1:

The intent of this success criterion is to introduce accessible authoring practices as a naturally integrated common practice. The range of examples might include markup fragments or screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views. WCAG 2.0 is referenced because it provides testable success criteria to measure web content accessibility.

Examples of Success Criterion B.3.4.1:

• Reference examples are accessible: An HTML authoring tool includes an on-line HTML reference guide. Most of the examples provided in the reference guide conform to WCAG 2.0 Level A.
  
• Screen shots show accessibility features in use: A content management system has a help system that includes screen shots of various screens. When screen shots show examples of the user interfaces while content being produced, the user interface is always such that the content produced would conforms WCAG 2.0 Level A (e.g., prompts filled in, optional accessibility features turned on, etc.).

Related Resources for Success Criterion B.3.4.1:

• WCAG 2.0 (including Understanding WCAG 2.0 and How to Meet WCAG 2.0)

See Implementing Success Criterion B.3.4.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

See Implementing Success Criterion B.3.4.1, substituting WCAG 2.0 Level AAA.