Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0

Abstract

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

Status of This Document

May be Superseded

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

Web Accessibility Initiative

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

No Endorsement

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

Patents

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

Introduction

ATAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance

The individuals and organizations that may use ATAG 2.0 vary widely and include authoring tool developers, authoring tool users (authors), authoring tool purchasers, and policy makers. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance are provided:

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

Levels of Conformance

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

Integration of Accessibility Features

When implementing ATAG 2.0, authoring tool developers should carefully integrate features that support accessible authoring into the same "look-and-feel" as other features of the authoring tool. Close integration has the potential to:

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

Guidelines

Conformance

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

Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0

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

Whenever success criteria or defined terms in ATAG 2.0 depend on WCAG 2.0, they are marked with "(WCAG)".

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

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

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

ATAG 2.0 does not include the accessibility-supported requirement. As a result, ATAG 2.0 success criteria do not refer to WCAG 2.0 "conformance", but instead refer to "meeting WCAG 2.0 success criteria".

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

Applicability of Success Criteria

The ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool is inclusive and, as such, it covers software with a wide range of capabilities and contexts of operation. In order to take into account authoring tools with limited feature sets (e.g., a photo editor, a CSS editor, a status update field in a social networking application), many of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are conditional, applying only to authoring tools with the given features(s) (e.g., Success Criterion B.1.1.1 applies only to authoring tools that automatically generate web content after the end of authoring sessions).

If a conformance claim is made, a declaration that a success criterion is not applicable requires a rationale.

Conformance Requirements

In order for an authoring tool to conform to ATAG 2.0, all of the following conformance requirements must be satisfied:

Conformance Levels:

Authoring tools may conform "fully" or "partially" to ATAG 2.0. In either case, the level of conformance depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied.

"Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have considered the accessibility of the authoring tools from both the perspective of authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible) and the perspective of end users of web content produced by the authoring tools (Part B: Support the production of accessible content):

1. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level A
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A success criteria.
2. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AA
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A and Level AA success criteria.
3. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AAA
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable success criteria.

And the Part A Conformance Applicability Notes and Part B Conformance Applicability Notes have been applied.

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

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

And the Part A Conformance Applicability Notes have been applied.

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

1. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level A: Content Production
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A success criteria in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.
2. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AA: Content Production
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.
3. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AAA: Content Production
   The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable success criteria in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.

And the Part B Conformance Applicability Notes have been applied.

Note: The Working Group remains committed to the guiding principle that: "Everyone should have the ability to create and access web content". Therefore, it is recommended that "Partial" Conformance be claimed only as a step toward "Full" Conformance.

Web Content Technologies Produced:

Authoring tools conform to ATAG 2.0 with respect to the production of specific web content technologies (e.g., Full Level A conformance with respect to the production of XHTML 1.0, Partial Level AA Conformance: Content Production with respect to the production of SVG 1.1).

If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies, then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automatically-generated content or sets as the default for author-generated content. The subset may include "interim" formats that are not intended for publishing to end users, but this is not required.

When Success Criterion B.2.1.1 refers to web content technologies for which the authoring tool provides support for the production of accessible content, it is referring to this subset.

Live publishing authoring tools:

ATAG 2.0 may be applied to authoring tools with workflows that involve live authoring of web content (e.g., some collaborative tools). Due to the challenges inherent in real-time publishing, conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 for these authoring tools may involve some combination of support before (e.g., support in preparing accessible slides), during (e.g., live captioning as WCAG 2.0 requires at Level AA) and after the live authoring session (e.g., the ability to add a transcript to the archive of a presentation that was initially published in real-time). For more information, see the Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix E: Authoring Tools for Live Web Content.

Conformance Claims (Optional)

If a conformance claim is made, then the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information (authoring tools can conform to ATAG 2.0 without making a claim). Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation.

Conditions on Conformance Claims

1. At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting Level A of WCAG 2.0. A suggested metadata description for this document is "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".
2. Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., product information web site), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included.
3. The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity.
4. Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims and keeping claims up to date.

Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

1. Claimant name and affiliation.
2. Date of the claim.
3. Guidelines title, version and URI
4. Conformance level satisfied.
5. Authoring tool information: The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e.g., vendor name, version number (or version range), required patches or updates, human language of the user interface or documentation).
   • Note: If the authoring tool is a collection of software components (e.g., a markup editor, an image editor, and a validation tool), then information must be provided separately for each component, although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole. As stated above, the Claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim, not the developer of any of the software components.
6. Web content technologies produced.
   • A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is including in the conformance claim. For each web content technology, provide information on how the web content technology might be used to create accessible web content (e.g., provide links to technology-specific techniques).
   • A list of any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is not including in the conformance claim.
7. Declarations: For each success criterion:
   • A declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied; or
   • A declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not.
8. Platform(s): The platform(s) upon which the authoring tool was evaluated:
   • For user agent platform(s) (used to evaluate web-based authoring tool user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the user agent(s).
   • For platforms that are not user agents (used to evaluate non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the platform(s) (e.g., desktop operating system, mobile operating system, cross-OS environment) and the name and version of the platform accessibility service(s) employed.

Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

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

"Progress Toward Conformance" Statement

Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular ATAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress toward conformance. This statement would be the same as a conformance claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2.0 conformance level that is being progressed toward, rather than one already satisfied, and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. The author of a "Progress Toward Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy of their statement. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement.

Disclaimer

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

Appendix A: Glossary

accessibility problems

ATAG 2.0 recognizes two types of accessibility problems:

• authoring tool user interface accessibility problems: Aspects of an authoring tool user interface that does not meet a success criterion in Part A of ATAG 2.0.
• web content accessibility problems (WCAG): Aspects of web content that does not meet a WCAG 2.0 success criterion (Level A, AA or AAA).

accessibility information (WCAG)

Any information that web content must contain in order to meet a WCAG 2.0 success criterion (Level A, AA or AAA). Examples include: programmatically associated alternative content (e.g., text alternatives for images), role and state information for widgets, relationships within complex tables).

accessible content support features

Any features of an authoring tool that directly support authors in increasing the accessibility of the web content being edited. These are features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B of ATAG 2.0.

alternative content

Web content that is used in place of other content that some people are not able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. WCAG 2.0 recognizes several general types of alternative content (for more information see WCAG 2.0):

• text alternatives for non-text content: Text that is programmatically associated with non-text content or referred to from text that is programmatically associated with non-text content. For example, an image of a chart might have two text alternatives: a description in the paragraph after the chart and a short text alternative for the chart indicating in words that a description follows.
• alternatives for time-based media: Web content that serves the same function or purpose as one or more tracks in a time based media presentation. This includes: captions, audio descriptions, extended audio descriptions, sign language interpretation as well as correctly sequenced text descriptions of time-based visual and auditory information that also is capable of achieving the outcomes of any interactivity in the time-based presentation.
• media alternative for text: Media that presents no more information than is already presented in text (directly or via text alternatives). A media alternative for text is provided for those who benefit from alternate representations of text. Media alternatives for text may be audio-only, video-only (including sign-language video), or audio-video.

Importantly, from the perspective of authoring tools, alternative content may or may not be:

• programmatically associated: Alternative content whose location and purpose can be programmatically determined from the original content for which it is serving as an alternative. For example, a paragraph might serve as a text alternative for an image, but it is only programmatically associated if this relationship is properly encoded (e.g., by "aria-labeledby").

Note: ATAG 2.0 typically refers to programmatically associated alternative content.

ASCII art

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

assistive technology

Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features. Examples include:

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

audio

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

author actions preventing generation of accessible web content

When the actions of authors prevents authoring tools from generating accessible web content (WCAG). Examples include: turning off accessibility options, ignoring prompts for accessibility information (WCAG), providing faulty accessibility information (WCAG) at prompts, modifying the authoring tool (e.g., via scripting, macros), and installing plug-ins.

authors

People who use authoring tools to create or modify web content. The term may cover roles such as content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. (see also Part B Conformance Applicability Note 6: Multiple authoring roles). Some authoring tools control who may be an author by managing author permissions.

author permission

Authorization that allows modification of given web content.

authoring action

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

authoring outcome

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

authoring practice

An approach that authors follow to achieve a given authoring outcome. (e.g., controlling presentation with style sheets). Depending on the design of an authoring tool, authoring practices may be chosen by the authors or by the authoring tool. Authoring practices may or may not be:

• accessible authoring practices: An authoring practice in which the authoring outcome conforms to WCAG 2.0. Some accessible authoring practices require accessibility information.

authoring session

A state of the authoring tool in which web content can be edited by an author.

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

authoring tool

Any web-based or non-web-based application(s) software (or collection of software components) that can be used by authors (alone or collaboratively) to create or modify web content for use by other people (other authors or end users).
Note 1: "application(s)": ATAG 2.0 may be conformed to by stand-alone applications or by collections of applications. If a conformance claim is made, then the claim must provide identifying information for each application and also for any required extensions, plug-ins, etc. PROPOSAL-REF "collection of software components": Multiple applications, plug-ins, etc. can be used together to meet ATAG 2.0 (see also note in the "Required Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim").
Note 2: "alone or collaboratively": Multiple authors may contribute to the creation of web content and, depending on the authoring tool, each author may work with different views of the content and different author permissions.
Note 3: "to create or modify web content": This clause rules out software that collects data from a person for other purposes (e.g., online grocery order form) and then creates web content from that data (e.g., a web-based warehouse order) without informing the person (however, WCAG 2.0 would still apply). This clause also rules out software used to create content exclusively in non-web content technologies.
Note 4: "for use by other people": This clause rules out the many web applications that allow people to modify web content that only they themselves experience (e.g., web-based email display settings) or that only provide input to automated processes (e.g., library catalog search page).
Examples of software that are generally considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0:

• web page authoring tools (e.g., WYSIWYG HTML editors)
• software for directly editing source code
• software for converting to web content technologies (e.g., "Save as HTML" features in office document applications)
• integrated development environments (e.g., for web application development)
• software that generates web content on the basis of templates, scripts, command-line input or "wizard"-type processes
• software for rapidly updating portions of web pages (e.g., blogging, wikis, online forums)
• software for generating/managing entire web sites (e.g., content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators)
• email clients that send messages using web content technologies
• multimedia authoring tools
• software for creating mobile web applications

Examples of software that are not considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0 (in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):

• customizable personal portals: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the web content being edited is only available to the owner of the portal
• e-commerce order forms: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the purpose of an e-commerce order form is to order a product, not communicate with other people via web content, even if the data collected by the form actually does result in web content (e.g., online tracking pages)
• stand-alone accessibility checkers: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because a stand-alone accessibility checker with no automated or semi-automated repair functionality does not actually modify web content. An accessibility checker with repair functionality or that is considered as part of a larger authoring process would be considered an authoring tool.
  

authoring tool user interface

The display and control mechanism that authors use to operate the authoring tool software. User interfaces may be non-web-based or web-based or a combination (e.g., a non-web-based authoring tool might have web-based help pages):

• authoring tool user interface (non-web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are not implemented as web content and instead run directly on a platform that is not a user agent (e.g., Windows, Mac OS, Java Virtual Machine).
• authoring tool user interface (web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are implemented using web content technologies and are accessed by authors via a user agent.

Authoring tool user interfaces may or may not be:

• accessible authoring tool user interfaces: Authoring tool user interfaces that meet the success criteria of a level in Part A of ATAG 2.0.

checking, accessibility

The process by which web content is evaluated for web content accessibility problems (WCAG). ATAG 2.0 recognizes three types of checking, based on increasing levels of automation of the tests:

• manual checking: Checking in which the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure.
• semi-automated checking: Checking in which the tests are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the tests.
• automated checking: Checking in which the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors. An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types.

collection of software components

Any software programs that are used either together (e.g., base tool and plug-in) or separately (e.g., markup editor, image editor, and validation tool), regardless of whether there has been any formal collaboration between the developers of the software components.

content (web content)

Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the end user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions. In ATAG 2.0, the term is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool. Content produced by authoring tools may include web applications, including those that act as web-based authoring tools. Content may or may not be:

• accessible content (WCAG): Web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA, or AAA).
• content being edited: The web content that an author can modify during an authoring session. The content being edited may be a complete piece of content (e.g., image, style sheet) or only part of a larger piece of content (e.g., a status update). The content being edited only includes content in web content technologies that the authoring tool supports (e.g., a WYSIWYG HTML editor allows editing of the HTML content of a web page editable, but not the images).

content properties

The individual pieces of information that make up the web content (e.g., the attributes and contents of elements, stylesheet information).

content (structured)

Web content that includes machine-readable internal structure (e.g., markup elements), as opposed to unstructured content, such as raster image formats or plain human language text.

content generation (content authoring, content editing)

The act of specifying the web content to be rendered, played or executed by user agents (also may be referred to as "content authoring" or "content editing"). This may refer to information perceived by end users or to instructions for the user agents. Content may be author generated or automatically generated:

• author generated content: When authors are fully responsible for the web content (e.g., typing markup into a source editing-view, writing captions for audio).
• automatically generated content: When programming by the authoring tool developer is responsible for the web content (e.g., applying a template, automatically correcting markup errors).

In some cases, responsibility for content generation is shared. For example, an author requests an interactive object be placed on their page (e.g., a photo album), the authoring tool applies a template, but the template requires input from the author to be complete.

content rendering

User interface functionality that authoring tools present if they render, play or execute the web content being edited. ATAG 2.0 recognizes several types of content renderings:

• conventional renderings (or "WYSIWYG"): When content is rendered in a way that is similar to the default rendering a user agent would create from the same content. While "WYSIWYG", standing for "What-you-see-is-what-you-get" is the common term, differences between user agents and end user settings mean that in reality there is no single typical end user experience; or
• unconventional renderings: When content is rendered differently than it would be in a typical user agent (e.g., rendering an audio file as a graphical wavefront); or
• partial renderings: When some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or executed, but not others (e.g., a frame-by-frame video editor renders the graphical, but not the timing aspects, of a video).

content transformations

Processes that take content in one web content technology or non-web content technology (e.g., a word processing format) as input and produce content that has been either:

• optimized: e.g., removing whitespace, re-compressing images; or
• restructured: e.g., linearizing tables, splitting a document into pages; or
• re-coded: e.g., HTML to XHTML, a word processing format to HTML.

control settings

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

developer

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

direct accessibility features

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

display settings

Settings that relate to how authors perceive the authoring tool. These include:

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

documentation

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

document object

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

element

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

end user

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

human language

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

informative

For information purposes and not required for conformance.

keyboard interface

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

keyboard trap

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

label

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

live

Information captured from a real-world event that is published with no more than a broadcast delay.
Note: A broadcast delay is a short (usually automated) delay, for example used in order to give the broadcaster time to queue or censor the audio (or video) feed, but not sufficient to allow significant editing.

markup language

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

• markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content.

name

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

non-text content

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

normative

Required for conformance. One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to ATAG 2.0. Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance.

option

When an author is presented with choices.

• default option: A setting or value for an option that is assigned automatically by the authoring tool and remains in effect unless canceled or changed by the author.

platform

The software environment within which the authoring tool operates. Platforms provide a consistent operational environment on top of lower level software platforms or hardware. For web-based authoring user interfaces, the most relevant platform will be a user agent (e.g., browser). For non-web-based user interfaces, the range of platforms includes, but may not be limited to, desktop operating systems (e.g., GNOME desktop on Linux, Mac OS, Windows), mobile operating systems (e.g., Android, BlackBerry, iOS, Windows Phone), or cross-OS environments (e.g., Java), etc..
Note 1: Many platforms mediate communication between applications operating on the platform and assistive technology via a platform accessibility service.
Note 2: Accessibility guidelines for developers exist for many platforms.

platform accessibility service

A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e.g., MSAA, IAccessible2 and UI Automation for Windows applications, AXAPI for Mac OS X applications, GNOME Accessibility Toolkit API for GNOME applications, Java Access for Java applications). On some platforms, it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object.

plug-in

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

presentation

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

programmatically determined (programmatically determinable)

Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the information in different modalities. ATAG 2.0 uses this term in two contexts:

• Processing content: Whether the authoring tool is able to extract information from the web content (e.g., to extract the language of content from the markup).
• Communication between the authoring tool and assistive technology: For non-web-based user interfaces, this means making use of platform accessibility services, APIs, and, in some cases, document object models. For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g., through the use of ARIA).
  Note: All of the success criteria requiring programmatic determinability via a platform accessibility service are all contingent on whether a platform accessibility service is present for the platform and whether the platform accessibility service is capable of supporting the required communication.PROPOSAL-REF

prominence

A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice a user interface component in a user interface that they are operating. Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual properties (e.g., size, spacing, color), and even the modality of use (e.g., mouse vs. keyboard use).

• at least as prominent: For ATAG 2.0, a user interface component A is considered to be "at least as prominent" as another component B when, from a default state, component A becomes displayed (and enabled) with the same number or less "opening" actions than are required for component B to become displayed (and enabled).
  Note 1: When a container is open, all of the enabled components in the container (e.g., items in a list, items in a menu, buttons in a toolbar, all components on a dialog box) are considered to be displayed (and therefore are at least as prominent as each other), even if the container must be scrolled for them to become visible. This takes into account that different screen sizes and author settings will affect which components are visible at a given time.
  Note 2: "Opening actions" are actions made by authors on components within the user interface that result in new components becoming displayed or enabled. For example: (a) keyboard shortcut to a top-level menu item to display a sub-menu, (b) keyboard selection on a button to display a dialog box, (c) mouse click on a checkbox to enable previously disabled sub-items, etc.. Actions that do not cause new components to become actionable (e.g., moving focus, scrolling a list), are not counted as "opening actions".
  Note 3: Keyboard shortcuts to components in closed containers are not counted as "opening actions" because the components have no prominence when they are not displayed. The same is true when authors must use "search" to reveal components in closed containers.
  Note 4: The "default state" is the state of the authoring tool at the beginning of an authoring session as set by the developer. The default state of many document authoring tools is an editing-view.

prompt

Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors. The term covers requests that must be responded to immediately (e.g. modal dialog boxes) as well as less urgent requests (e.g. underlining a misspelled word). Well designed prompting will urge, suggest, and encourage authors.PROPOSAL-REF

publishing

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

range

More than one item within a multi-item set.
Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" in several success criteria in which absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g., the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the success criteria more broadly.

relationships

Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content.

repair (accessibility)

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

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

restrictions, restricted web content authoring

When the web content that authors can specify with an authoring tool either must include or must not include certain content (e.g., elements, attributes, widgets). Many authoring tools restrict authoring in some way, which can either benefit accessibility (e.g., if text alternatives for non-text content are required) or detract from accessibility (e.g., if attributes for defining text alternatives are not available). In contrast, authoring tools that allow unrestricted web content authoring do not require any particular content to be included or not included (e.g., many source editing-views).

reversible actions

Authoring actions that, by their nature, can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was in before the action. The opposite of reversible actions are:

• irreversible actions non-reversible:PROPOSAL-REF Actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with.

role

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

sequential keyboard access

Using a keyboard interface to navigate the focus one-by-one through all of the items in an ordered set (e.g., menu items, form fields) until the desired item is reached and activated. This is in contrast to direct keyboard access methods such as keyboard shortcuts and the use of bypass links.

technology (web content)

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

templates

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

• accessible templates (WCAG): Templates that can be filled in to create web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA or AAA), when both of the following are true:
  1. The author correctly follows any instructions provided (e.g., correctly responding to prompts, correctly replacing highlighted placeholders); and
  2. No further authoring occurs
  Note: Under these conditions, some templates will result in completely empty documents, which are considered accessible by default.

template selection mechanism

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

tutorial

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

user agent

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

user interface component

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

video

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

view

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

• editing-views: View in which some or all of the content is editable; or
• previews: Views in which none of the content is editable. Often the purpose is to present content as it would to appear to end-users of user agent. In these cases, previews may be implemented using existing user agents or they may only attempt to emulate some functionality user agent functionality.

ATAG 2.0 also recognizes several approaches to presenting the content in a view:

• source views: The content is presented in unrendered form (e.g., plain text editors); or
• rendered views: Content renderings (conventional, unconventional or partial) are presented; or
• property views: Only properties of the content are presented. The authoring tool then uses these properties to automatically generate the content to be published (e.g., CMS calendar widget that generates a calendar from the numeric month and year).

workflow

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

Appendix C: References

This section is informative.

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

[ATAG10]

"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/.

[UAAG]

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

[WCAG20]

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

Appendix D: Acknowledgments

Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:

• Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology)
• Alastair Campbell (Nomensa)
• Cherie Ekholm (Microsoft)
• Alex Li (Microsoft)
• Alessandro Miele (Invited Expert)
• Sueann Nichols (IBM)
• Greg Pisocky (Adobe)
• Sarah Pulis (Media Access Australia)
• Jan Richards (Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University)
• Andrew Ronksley (Royal National Institute for the Blind)
• Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
• Jeanne Spellman (W3C)
• Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University)

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

Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler, Geoff Deering, Barry A. Feigenbaum, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Karen Mardahl, Matt May, Charles McCathieNevile, Ann McMeekin, Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Dana Simberkoff, Reed Shaffner, Michael Squillace, Heather Swayne, Gregg Vanderheiden, Carlos Velasco, and Jason White.

This document would not have been possible without the work of those who contributed to ATAG 1.0.

This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) under contract number ED-OSE-10-C-0067. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.