ATAG source document

[contents] [guidelines] [checklist]

NB: title, status (REC, Note, etc), date, version info auto-generated from makefile

Editors:: Jutta Treviranus - ATRC, University of Toronto; Charles McCathieNevile - W3C; Ian Jacobs - W3C; Jan Richards - University of Toronto

Abstract

This document is used to generate the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines, and the various views of the Techniques for Authoring Tool Accesssibity. It is an XHTML document, and XSLT transformations are used to convert it to the result documents, adding and removing relevant content according to the desired view.

This specification provides guidelines for Web authoring tool developers. Its purpose is two-fold: to assist developers in designing authoring tools that produce accessible Web content and to assist developers in creating an accessible authoring interface.

Authoring tools can enable, encourage, and assist users ("authors") in the creation of accessible Web content through prompts, alerts, checking and repair functions, help files and automated tools. It is just as important that all people be able to author content as it is for all people to have access to it. The tools used to create this information must therefore be accessible themselves. Adoption of these guidelines will contribute to the proliferation of Web content that can be read by a broader range of readers and authoring tools that can be used by a broader range of authors.

This document provides information to authoring tool developers who wish to satisfy the checkpoints of "_THE_GL_TITLE_" [[ATAG10]]. It includes suggested techniques, sample strategies in deployed tools, and references to other accessibility resources (such as platform-specific software accessibility guidelines) that provide additional information on how a tool may satisfy each checkpoint.

This document is part of a series of accessibility documents published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).

Status of this document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status of this document series is maintained at the W3C.

This is a source document used to generate the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines and the Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility. Some of the content of this document is used in each of those, some in both, and some in neither. This source document is made publicly available to assist translators, the working group, and others working on the document. This source document does not represent the consensus of the Working Group, nor is it endorsed by W3C or any member organisation. It is inappropriate to refer to this as a publication of the W3C - it is a component used to produce publications. Further information on how this document is used to generate the result publications is available.

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties and has been endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited as a normative reference from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

This version of Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility is a working draft of an update to W3C Note, published as an informative appendix to "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines". This document updates the previous version of this Note but does not represent consensus within the WAI Authoring Tools Guidelines (AUWG) Working Group, nor within W3C. This document is likely to change and should not be cited as reference material or anything other than "work in progress". The Working Group expects to update this document in response to queries raised by implementors of the Guidelines, for example to cover new technologies. Suggestions for additional techniques are welcome.

This document is a subset of the Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility which is specifically relevant to authoring tools designed to produce audio or visual content, including images, movies, animated graphics, soundtracks, pre-recorded messages, and other audio, visual, or audio-visual Web content. This is a preliminary (experimental) draft, likely to contain errors. It is made available for review and comment.

This document is a subset of the Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility which is specifically relevant to authoring tools designed to produce documents which are primarily textual or text-based, including HTML, XHTML, and similar Web content. This is a preliminary (experimental) draft, likely to contain errors. It is made available for review and comment.

A log of changes between successive Working Drafts is available.

For further information about Working Group decisions, please consult the minutes of AUWG Meetings.

This document has been produced by the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) as part of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the Working Group are discussed in the AUWG charter.

Please send general comments about this document to the public mailing list: w3c-wai-au@w3.org (public archives).

The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Information about translations of this document is available at _THE_TRANSLATIONS_.

The list of known errors in this document is available at _THE_ERRATA_. Please report errors in this document to wai-atag-editor@w3.org.

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents including Working Drafts and Notes can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.

An appendix to this document [[ATAG10-CHECKLIST]] lists all checkpoints for convenient reference.

Introduction

In these guidelines, the term "authoring tool" refers to the wide range of software used for creating Web content, including:

Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content (e.g., WYSIWYG HTML and XML editors);
Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web format (e.g., word processors or desktop publishing packages);
Tools that transform documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to transform desktop publishing formats to HTML);
Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is intended for use on the Web (e.g., video production and editing suites, SMIL authoring packages);
Tools for site management or site publication, including tools that automatically generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-fly conversion tools, and Web site publishing tools;
Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).

The goals of this document can be stated as follows: that the authoring tool be accessible to authors regardless of disability, that it produce accessible content by default, and that it support and encourage the author in creating accessible content. Because most of the content of the Web is created using authoring tools, they play a critical role in ensuring the accessibility of the Web. Since the Web is both a means of receiving information and communicating information, it is important that both the Web content produced and the authoring tool itself be accessible.

To achieve these goals, authoring tool developers must take steps such as ensuring conformance to accessible standards (e.g., HTML 4), checking and correcting accessibility problems, prompting, and providing appropriate documentation and help. For detailed information about what constitutes accessible content, these guidelines rely on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]]. Similarly, rather than directly reproducing existing specifications that address general accessible software design, these guidelines rely on other sources. The present guidelines do address accessible design considerations specific to Web authoring tools such as providing flexible editing views, navigation aids and access to display properties for authors.

The principles set forth in these guidelines will benefit many people who do not have a disability but who have similar needs. This includes people who work in noisy or quiet environments where the use of sound is not practical, people who need to use their eyes for another task and are unable to view a screen, and people who use small mobile devices that have a small screen, no keyboard, and no mouse.

A separate document, entitled "_THE_TECH_TITLE_" [[ATAG10-TECHS]], provides suggestions and examples of how each checkpoint might be satisfied. It also includes references to other accessibility resources (such as platform-specific software accessibility guidelines) that provide additional information on how a tool may satisfy each checkpoint. Readers are strongly encouraged to become familiar with the Techniques Document as well as "Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [[WCAG10-TECHS]] and "Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [[UAAG10-TECHS]].

Note: The techniques in [[ATAG10-TECHS]] are informative examples only. Other strategies may be used to satisfy the checkpoints in addition to, or in place of, those discussed in [[ATAG10-TECHS]].

Note: Authoring tools that conform to this document will propagate accessible Web content and be useful to anyone regardless of disability. There will also be authoring tools that produce accessible content in favorable circumstances (e.g., a text editor used by a motivated author), or provide an accessible interface to authors with certain disabilities, but that do not conform to these guidelines.

The "_THE_GL_TITLE_" [[ATAG10]] has two goals: to assist developers in designing authoring tools that produce accessible Web content and to assist developers in creating an accessible authoring interface. The present "Techniques Document" suggests to developers some strategies for meeting those goals.

Implementation of techniques for some of these guidelines requires familiarity with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0 [[WCAG10]]. In addition, readers are strongly encouraged to become familiar with the "Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [[WCAG10-TECHS]] and "Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [[UAAG10-TECHS]].

Note: The techniques in this document are merely suggestions; they are not required for conformance to "_THE_GL_TITLE_". These techniques are not necessarily the only way of satisfying the checkpoint, nor are they necessarily a definitive set of requirements for satisfying a checkpoint.

How the GuidelinesTechniques are organized

The seven guidelines in this document are general principles for accessible design. Each guideline includes:

The guideline number;
The statement of the guideline;
The rationale behind the guideline;
A list of checkpoint definitions.

The checkpoint definitions in each guideline specify requirements for authoring tools to follow the guideline. Each checkpoint definition includes:

The checkpoint number;
The statement of the checkpoint;
The priority of the checkpoint;
In some cases informative notes, clarifying examples, or cross references to related guidelines or checkpoints;
A link to a section of "_THE_TECH_TITLE_" [[ATAG10-TECHS]] where implementations and examples of the checkpoint are discussed.

Each checkpoint is intended to be specific enough that it can be verified, while being sufficiently general to allow developers the freedom to use the most appropriate strategies to satisfy it.

An appendix to this specification [[ATAG10-CHECKLIST]] lists all checkpoints for convenient reference.

This document has the same structure as the "_THE_GL_TITLE_" [[ATAG10]]: seven guidelines, each of which includes at least one checkpoint. Information about checkpoint priorities is found in the "_THE_GL_TITLE_".

Unlike "_THE_GL_TITLE_", the current document includes a list of techniques after each checkpoint. Techniques may be suggested strategies, references to other accessibility resources (noted "Reference"), or examples of how deployed tools satisfy the checkpoint (noted "Sample").

For some guidelines there are techniques or information that are relevant to the entire guideline. These are provided at the end of the section for the relevant guideline.

A second part of this document, "Techniques for Evaluating Authoring Tool Accessibility" [[ATAG-EVAL]], describes techniques that can be used for testing conformance to "_THE_GL_TITLE_" [[ATAG10]]. That information is organized according to the type of tool (an image editor, a markup editor, etc), and then as a process for testing different types of tool. For ease of use, that information is published as a document that can be used on its own. As of this draft that document is in a first rough draft form, published only for review and to test future development directions.

Checkpoint Priorities

Each checkpoint has a priority level. The priority level reflects the impact of the checkpoint in meeting the goals of this specification. These goals are:

That the authoring tool be accessible;
That the authoring tool produce accessible content by default;
That the authoring tool encourage the creation of accessible content.

The priority levels are assigned as follows:

[Priority 1]

If the checkpoint is essential to meeting the goals.

[Priority 2]

If the checkpoint is important to meeting the goals.

[Priority 3]

If the checkpoint is beneficial to meeting the goals.

[Relative Priority]

Some checkpoints that refer to generating, authoring, or checking Web content have multiple priorities. The priority depends on the corresponding priority in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

It is priority 1 to satisfy the checkpoint for content features that are a priority 1 requirement in WCAG 1.0.
It is priority 2 to satisfy the checkpoint for content features that are a priority 2 requirement in WCAG 1.0.
It is priority 3 to satisfy the checkpoint for content features that are a priority 3 requirement in WCAG 1.0.

For example:

Providing text equivalents for images and audio is a priority 1 requirement in WCAG 1.0 since without it one or more groups will find it impossible to access the information. Therefore, it is a priority 1 requirement for the authoring tool to check for ([##Cnotify-on-schedule]) or ask the author for ([##Cprovide-missing-alt]) equivalent alternatives for these types of content.
Grouping links in navigation bars is a priority 3 in WCAG 1.0. Therefore, it is only priority 3 for the authoring tool to check for ([##Cnotify-on-schedule]) or ask the author for ([##Chelp-provide-structure]) groups of links that are not grouped in the markup as a navigation mechanism.

When a checkpoint in this document refers to the WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]], only the WCAG 1.0 checkpoints that refer to content supported or automatically generated by the authoring tool apply. Some of the applicable WCAG 1.0 checkpoints may be satisfied automatically (without author participation) while others require human judgment and support from the tool in the form of prompts and documentation. Different tools may satisfy the same checkpoint differently.

The priority level for each checkpoint has been chosen based on the assumption that the author is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of the authoring tool, and that the author has little or no knowledge of accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to have read all of the documentation, but is expected to know how to turn to the documentation for assistance.

Conformance to these Guidelines

This section explains how to make a valid claim that an authoring tool conforms to this document. Anyone may make a claim (e.g., vendors about their own products, third parties about those products, journalists about products, etc.). Claims may be published anywhere (e.g., on the Web or in product documentation).

Claimants are solely responsible for their claims and the use of the conformance icons. If the subject of the claim (i.e., the software) changes after the date of the claim, the claimant is responsible for updating the claim. Claimants are encouraged to conform to the most recent guidelines available.

Details about the conformance icons are provided on the Web (refer to [[CONFORMANCE]]).

Conformance levels

A conformance claim must indicate what conformance level is met:

Conformance Level "A": all Priority 1 checkpoints (including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.
Conformance Level "Double-A": all Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints (including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.
Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints (including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.

Note: Conformance levels are spelled out in text (e.g., "Double-A" rather than "AA") so they may be understood when rendered as speech.

Well-formed conformance claims

A well-formed claim must include the following information:

The guidelines title/version: "_THE_GL_TITLE_";
The URI of the guidelines: _THIS_VERSION_;
The conformance level satisfied: "A", "Double-A", or "Triple-A";
The version number and operating system of the software covered by the claim. Also indicate whether any upgrades or plug-ins are required;
The date of the claim;
The checkpoints of the chosen conformance level considered not applicable. Claimants should use the checklist [[ATAG10-CHECKLIST]] for this purpose.

This information may be provided in text or metadata markup (e.g., using the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [[RDF10]] and an RDF schema designed for WAI conformance claims). All content in the claim must be accessible according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

Here is an example of a claim expressed in HTML:

<p>MyAuthoringTool version 2.3 on MyOperatingSystem conforms to <abbr title="the World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>'s "_THE_GL_TITLE_", available at _THIS_VERSION_, level Double-A. Details of this claim are provided at <a href="http://somewhere.com/details"> http://somewhere.com/details</a>.</p>

Validity of a claim

A conformance claim is valid for a given conformance level if:

The claim is well-formed, and
The authoring tool satisfies all the checkpoints for that level.

Claimants (or relevant assuring parties) are responsible for the validity of a claim. As of the publication of this document, W3C does not act as an assuring party, but it may do so in the future, or establish recommendations for assuring parties.

Claimants are expected to modify or retract a claim if it may be demonstrated that the claim is not valid. Please note that it is not currently possible to validate claims completely automatically.

Conformance Icons

As part of a conformance claim, people may use a conformance icon on a Web site, on product packaging, in documentation, etc. Each conformance icon (chosen according to the appropriate conformance level) must link to the W3C explanation of the icon. The appearance of a conformance icon does not imply that W3C has reviewed or validated the claim. An icon must be accompanied by a well-formed claim.

Guidelines

access-supportSupport accessible authoring practices.

If the tool automatically generates markup, many authors will be unaware of the accessibility status of the final content unless they expend extra effort to review it and make appropriate corrections by hand. Since many authors are unfamiliar with accessibility, authoring tools are responsible for automatically generating accessible markup, and where appropriate, for guiding the author in producing accessible content.

Many applications feature the ability to convert documents from other formats (e.g., Rich Text Format) into a markup format specifically intended for the Web such as HTML. Markup changes may also be made to facilitate efficient editing and manipulation. It is essential that these processes do not introduce inaccessible markup or remove accessibility content, particularly when a tool hides the markup changes from the author's view.

Checkpoints for guideline 1:

1support-access-featuresEnsure that the author can produce accessible content in the markup language(s) supported by the tool.

Ensure that all structural features available in a language are available within a tool. For example, a web publishing system based on a database must allow for the use of equivalent alternatives and the use of structural elements to identify the semantic role played by different content.
Provide options for accessibility information to be included whenever an object is added to a document (e.g., a text equivalent for an image). [-Cprovide-missing-alt]
Implement editing mechanisms for every feature available in supported formats.
Allow direct source editing (but note also the requirements of [#Cleave-access-content] and [#Cintegrate-features])
Most image formats, including PNG, SVG, WebCGM, JPEG, and GIF allow the inclusion of text content. Where it is available in the format, allow the author to include metadata and alternative content in this way (see also [#Cahve-alt-registry].
Many formats for audio or video allow authors to include equivalent alternatives.
Enable the author to seperate different audio, video, descriptive, signing and text tracks, and synchronise them.
An audio/video editing suite can use SMIL to synchronize audio, video, descriptive signing and text tracks.
When converting documents, allow authors to edit conversion templates to include structure information derived from presentation conventions. For example, a document may use a particular font convention to identify the major heading in a language which does not allow for markup of structured information. When converting to a language which does allow structure, such as XHTML, allow the author to specify which presentation conventions correspond to which structural markup.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] and Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10-TECHS]]
The Web Accessibility Initiative has published a number of documents on the accessibility features of different W3C specifications:
- Accessibility Features of CSS [[CSS2-ACCESS]]
- Accessibility Features of SMIL [[SMIL-ACCESS]]
- HTML 4.0 Accessibility Improvements [[HTML4-ACCESS]].
- Accessibility of Scalable Vector Graphics [[SVG-ACCESS]]
Many language specifications themselves also provide information about accessibility features available.
For Authoring Tools that can output SMIL, implement the accessibility features described in Accessibility Features of SMIL [[SMIL-ACCESS]]
For Authoring Tools that can output SMIL, authoring methods for the full SMIL specification [[SMIL]]

1leave-access-contentEnsure that the tool preserves all accessibility information during authoring, transformations, and conversions.

When transforming a table to a list or list of lists, ensure that table headings are transformed into headings and that summary or caption information is retained as rendered content. This transformation may not be reversible.
Even when a document's graphical layout has been rearranged, ensure that the document makes sense when rendered serially. For example, prompt the author to confirm linearized reading order after the graphical layout has changed. Another way this is implemented is to maintain seperate layout and content. For example desktop publishing software often maintains text blocks that is can flow and reflow, and allows the author to change the layout seperately, reflowing the text into the new layout while preserving the reading order of the original text.
Seperate multiple imported media tracks.
Preserve all title, descriptive, summary or abstract information in multimedia presentations in transformations
Where possible keep alternative tracks seperated, with information about the relationships. Where stuff is exported in another format which does not support this, include the information (titles, captions, etc) as a part of the single presentation.
Maintain synchronisation cues.
Maintain captioning/overdub information, where possible using SMIL test attributes.
Maintain selection order (and all choices) for switch elements.
When converting from a word-processor format to HTML, ensure that headings and list items are transformed into appropriate headings of the appropriate level, and list items in the appropriate type of list (rather than as plain text with font formatting)
Do not transform text into images - use style sheets for presentation control, or an XML application such as Scalable Vector Graphics [[SVG]] that keeps the text as text. If this is not possible, ensure that the text that is converted is available as equivalent text for the image.
Ensure that the tool recognizes and preserves elements that are defined in the relevant specification(s) even if it is unable to render them in a publishing view or preview mode.
When converting linked elements such as footnotes or endnotes either provide them as inline content or maintain two-way linking. In HTML, this should be hypertext links rather than plain-text references.

Rgenerate-access-markupEnsure that when the tool automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

Use consistent document structures. For a tool that does site-wide management, provide consistent navigation systems and document structures.
Seperate different audio, video, or text components into explicitly declared and synchronised components. In SMIL, use seperate media objects for each track.
For SMIL and SVG use declarative animation to provide interactivity rather than script languages.
Use langauges that provide the best possible support for accessibility as a "native" or default format.
Include markup that provides equivalent alternatives for media-dependent elements or content.
Do not use structural markup for presentation effects, or presentation markup for known structures. For example, use list markup of an appropriate type rather than creating multiple line paragraphs and beginning each line with an image of a bullet. Do not use list markup for an indentation effect.
Do not publish Web content in markup languages that do not allow for equivalent alternative information to be included for media-specific presentations (such as images or video, sound, etc). Where this cannot be avoided, make the information directly available from the content generated. For example, convert the text equivalent of an image to a caption for the image, or provide a "base" page that includes links to alternative versions of content.
New markup languages are constantly being developed, and in many cases offer improvements to the structure and utility of Web content. In implementing a new or extended markup language, it is important to ensure that a tool does not remove access to information that had been inherent in the base markup language.
The same can apply to a format that simplifies an existing format. For example, producing a modified HTML DTD that did not include the "alt" attribute for the IMG element, or effectively working to such a DTD by not implementing a means to include the attribute, compromises the accessibility of any included IMG elements.
The Web Accessibility Initiative's Protocols and Formats group have a draft set of notes about creating accessible markup languages [[XMLGL]].

[#C+Ruse-accessible-templates] Ensure that templates provided by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

Produce accessible representations for site maps generated by the authoring tool.
Provide equivalent alternatives for all non-text content (images, audio, etc).
Use consistent navigation mechanisms.
Ensure that event-handlers for scripts are device-independent.
Ensure that color schemes provide sufficient contrast for people or technology with poor color separation.
Ensure that the natural language of the template is identified.
Provide navigation bars.
Provide keyboard shortcuts for important links, etc.
Some sample templates are available: (Note that these samples are still subject to review, and may require changes. Sample set one includes:

[+Glanguage-support]Generate standard markup.

Conformance with standards promotes interoperability and accessibility by making it easier to create specialized user agents that address the needs of users with disabilities. In particular, many assistive technologies used with browsers and multimedia players are only able to provide access to Web documents that use valid markup. Therefore, valid markup is an essential aspect of authoring tool accessibility.

Where applicable use W3C Recommendations, which have been reviewed to ensure accessibility and interoperability. If there are no applicable W3C Recommendations, use a published standard that enables accessibility.

Checkpoints:

[#C+2prefer-w3c] Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are available and appropriate for a task.

W3C specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that they do not compromise accessibility, and where possible, they enhance it.

When creating documents or markup languages, make full use of W3C Recommendations. For example, when creating mathematical content for the Web use MathML [[MATHML]] rather than another markup language. Use applicable HTML 4 [[HTML4]] structures.
As of the date of this draft (_THE_DATE_) the following languages are W3C Recommendations (latest versions given where there are multiple versions):

XHTML ^"1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language - A Reformulation of HTML 4 in XML 1.0

26 January 2000, Steve Pemberton et al. The "standard" Web language for documents. The latest version is written in XML, but can still be read by most user agents (Web browsers) designed for earlier versions HTML.

XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0

16 November 1999, James Clark. A language for specifying transformations of documents, written in XML.

Mathematical Markup Language (MathML ^") 1.01 Specification

7 April 1998, revised 7 July 1999. Patrick Ion, Robert Miner, Stephen Buswell, Nico Poppelier. A language for describing Mathematics, written in XML.

Extensible Markup Language (XML)

A meta-language that can be used to specify other languages (many W3C languages and languages in development are written in XML). XML includes the following specifications that are already W3C Recommendations:

Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 Specification

10 February 1998, Tim Bray, Jean Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

Associating Style Sheets with XML documents

29 June 1999, James Clark

Namespaces in XML

14 January 1999, Tim Bray, Dave Hollander, Andrew Layman

XML Path Language (XPath) Version 1.0

16 November 1999, James Clark, Steve DeRose

Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification

22 February 1999, Ora Lassila, Ralph R. Swick. A language for making assertions, written in XML.

WebCGM Profile

21 January 1999, David Cruikshank, John Gebhardt, Lofton Henderson, Roy Platon, Dieter Weidenbrueck

Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL) 1.0 Specification

15 June 1998, Philipp Hoschka. A language written in XML for specifying the synchronisation of different media elements, for example video, sound, text.

PICS Signed Labels (DSig) 1.0 Specification

27 May 1998, Yang-Hua Chu, Philip DesAutels, Brian LaMacchia, Peter Lipp

Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 (CSS2) Specification

12 May 1998, Bert Bos, Håkon Wium Lie, Chris Lilley, Ian Jacobs. A language for expressing how content written in XML languages should be presented. It includes properties for graphic media (such as screens or print) and aural media, a mechanism for applying multiple sets of presentation instructions (style sheets) and a mechanism for resolving conflicts that arise when two or more style sheets specify different values for the same properties.

PICSRules 1.1 Specification

29 December 1997, Christopher Evans, Clive D.W. Feather, Alex Hopmann, Martin Presler-Marshall, Paul Resnick

PICS 1.1 Rating Services and Rating Systems -- and Their Machine Readable Descriptions

31 October 1996, Jim Miller, Paul Resnick and David Singer

PICS 1.1 Label Distribution -- Label Syntax and Communication Protocols

31 October 1996, Tim Krauskopf, Jim Miller, Paul Resnick and Win Treese

PNG (Portable Network Graphics) Specification

1 October 1996, various authors. A lossless bitmap graphic format, that allows the inclusion of comments and metadata.
A modular design that allows for the inclusion of languages will permit tools to have a language "available" later in their development cycle, or may allow tools to use languages which are not specified at the time of development. Specifications that become W3C Recommendations after an authoring tool's development cycles permit input are not considered "available" in time.
Ensure that the tool recognizes and preserves elements that are defined in the relevant specification(s) even if it is unable to render them. This is particularly important for WYSIWYG editing tools.

[#C+1ensure-published-DTD] Ensure that the tool automatically generates valid markup.

This is necessary for user agents to be able to render Web content in a manner appropriate to a particular user's needs.

Produce valid HTML/XML. Refer to [[HTML-XML-VALIDATOR]].
Publish proprietary language specifications or DTDs on the Web, to allow documents to be validated.
Use namespaces and schemas to make documents that can be automatically transformed to a known markup language.

[#C+3declare-extended-DTD] If markup produced by the tool does not conform to W3C specifications, inform the author.

Invalid markup can be highlighted through the use of style sheets. [-Cnotify-on-schedule]
A tool that provides a Web editing mode and a non-Web editing mode can change modes when invalid markup is introduced. [-Cnotify-on-schedule]
If Amaya imports or generates markup that does not conform to W3C specifications it is highlighted in the structure view. This occurs when Amaya tries to repair invalid markup and cannot successfully do so.

[+Gprewritten-descs]Support the creation of accessible content.

Well-structured information and equivalent alternative information are cornerstones of accessible design, allowing information to be presented in a way most appropriate for the needs of the user without constraining the creativity of the author. Yet producing equivalent information, such as text alternatives for images and auditory descriptions of video, can be one of the most challenging aspects of Web design, and authoring tool developers should attempt to facilitate and automate the mechanics of this process. For example, prompting authors to include equivalent alternative information such as text equivalents, captions, and auditory descriptions at appropriate times can greatly ease the burden for authors. Where such information can be mechanically determined and offered as a choice for the author (e.g., the function of icons in an automatically-generated navigation bar, or expansion of acronyms from a dictionary), the tool can assist the author. At the same time, the tool can reinforce the need for such information and the author's role in ensuring that it is used appropriately in each instance.

Checkpoints:

[#C+Rprovide-missing-alt] Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video).

Note: Some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] may not apply.

The WAI Evaluation and Repair group [[WAI-ER]] is developing a document that discusses detailed techniques for testing and repairing the accessibility of content according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Much of that material is useful in fulfilling the requirements of this checkpoint. A draft of that document is available [[AUTO-TOOL]].
When a multimedia object is inserted, prompt the author for relevant alternatives: functional replacement and long description for images, text captions (as text or as a URI), video of signed translations for audio, and audio descriptions for video (as well as alternatives for its audio components).
Provide an author with the option of specifying alternative information, or electing to insert null alternative information for images, audio, video. Default to an accessibility error such as no TITLE or DESC element for SVG images. Prompt the author to identify the type of image (decorative, a navigation icon, etc.).
When video is inserted, prompt the author for a still image as part of the alternative information.
When inserting objects such as spreadsheets or word processor documents, offer the option of providing a Web-formated version. For example, a spreadsheet or a word processor document in a proprietary format could also be published as an HTML document. Tools that dynamically generate Web content may use HTTP content negotiation to facilitate this.
Satisfying [#Chave-alt-registry] would provide much of the required functionality. [-Cnotify-on-schedule] [-Caccessibility-everywhere].
Some Techniques are listed below for different languages, organised according to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [[WCAG10]] checkpoints.

WCAG Checkpoint 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element [Priority 1]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 9.1 and WCAG checkpoint 13.10.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.1

HTML

prompt for longdesc and alt for img elements
prompt for alt for area elements
prompt for text transcript for audio objects.
prompt for collated text transcript for movies.

SVG

Prompt for a title and desc for each g group

SMIL

Prompt for alt, longdesc, a text or textstream object for audio, image and video objects

WCAG Checkpoint 1.2 Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map. [Priority 1]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.5 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.2

HTML

Use the same User interface for server and client side image map creations, including prompting for alternatives for each region. Use alternatives provided to generate redundant text-based links for server-side maps.
Prompt for text which describes the range and the effect of possible coordinate entries, and generate an alternative, form-based entry system.

WCAG Checkpoint 1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.3

SMIL

Prompt the author to provide an audio track that includes description, if necessary with an alternative version of the video.

WCAG Checkpoint 1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.4

HTML

Use a format such as SMIL which allows for the inclusion and synchronization of equivalent tracks

XML

Use SMIL timing to synchronize equivalents

WCAG Checkpoint 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map. [Priority 3]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.2 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.5

HTML: Use the alt associated with area elements to build a redundant text navigation bar

WCAG Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.1

WCAG Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.2

HTML, SVG, CSS: Where only one color has been specified (for example a background but not foreground) ask the author to specify (or confirm default) colors for other parts, where possible from a range that has sufficient contrast.

WCAG Checkpoint 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 6 and WCAG guideline 11.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.1

HTML

Where images are readable through Optical Character Recognition (OCR) as text, use text with CSS styling.

XHTML, XML

Where images are readable through Optical Character Recognition (OCR) as text use SVG
Where images are recognizable as mathematical content, use MathML
Prompt the author to use a markup language for text, mathematics, etc.

WCAG Checkpoint 6.2 Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.2

HTML

Where scripts change the src attribute of images, prompt the author to include changes in the alt attribute or element content.

SVG, XHTML

Where SMIL animation is used, prompt the author to ensure that desc and title elements are appropriately updated by the animation

WCAG Checkpoint 6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.3

HTML: Ask for equivalents for scripts, and applets, for example a movie (and collated text transcripts, audio, etc)

WCAG Checkpoint 6.5 Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.5

WCAG Checkpoint 7.1 Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. [Priority 1]

Note. People with photosensitive epilepsy can have seizures triggered by flickering or flashing in the 4 to 59 flashes per second (Hertz) range with a peak sensitivity at 20 flashes per second as well as quick changes from dark to light (like strobe lights).

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.1

HTML (relying on lowsrc attribute - not in W3C recommendation): Prompt for a non-animated "lowsrc" version of animated images.

WCAG Checkpoint 7.2 Until user agents allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink (i.e., change presentation at a regular rate, such as turning on and off). [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.2

WCAG Checkpoint 7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages. [Priority 2]

When a page includes moving content, provide a mechanism within a script or applet to allow users to freeze motion or updates. Using style sheets with scripting to create movement allows users to turn off or override the effect more easily. Refer also to WCAG guideline 8.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.3

WCAG Checkpoint 8.1 Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 6.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 8.1

WCAG Checkpoint 9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape. [Priority 1]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.1, WCAG checkpoint 1.2, and WCAG checkpoint 1.5.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.1

HTML: Use the same interface for defining areas of client- and server-side maps, and produce the image as client-side where possible

WCAG Checkpoint 11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.1

Raster images (PNG, JPEG, GIF)

Use RDF to incorporate textual equivalents in image encodings

Vector images

Use SVG, and prompt the author to provide appropriate title and desc elements for each g element.

WCAG Checkpoint 11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.) [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.3

WCAG Checkpoint 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.4

General: Note that the alternative page is required to be an accessible version, rather than simply a plain text or other partial view of the information

WCAG Checkpoint 13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 13.5.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.2

Images: Metadata can be added to most image formats commonly used on the Web, including PNG, JPEG, GIF, and SVG. See the W3C Note "Describing and retrieving photos using RDF and HTTP" [[RDFPIC]].

WCAG Checkpoint 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. [Priority 3]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 1.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 14.2

HTML: Provide libraries of accessible clip art to illustrate common concepts, or allow the author to build them. See also ATAG 3.5

[#C+Rhelp-provide-structure] Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation.

Note: Some checkpoints in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] may not apply.

The WAI Evaluation and Repair group [[WAI-ER]] is developing a document that discusses detailed techniques for testing the accessibility of content according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and methods of repairing it. A draft of that document is available [[AUTO-TOOL]].
Recognize collections of uppercase letters as likely abbreviations (in languages that have case) and prompt the author for an expansion, to be provided in markup (e.g., in HTML, with abbr or acronym).
Prompt the author to identify the structural role of content that has been emphasized through styling.
In Japanese, Chinese, and other appropriate languages, prompt the author for text that can be used as a ruby for unusual ideographs or ideographic groups. Refer to [[RUBY]].
Prompt the author to provide header information for tabular data.
Prompt the author (and allow them to specify a default suggestion) for the language of a document.
Use a dictionary lookup system to recognise changes of language, or use of abbreviations and acronym. A similar system can be used to recognise formatting conventions such as a number of consecutive paragraphs beginning with a bullet character (this may be a "bullet" or another punctuation character like asterisk "*" or dash "-") being used to identify a list.
Provide an outline view that lets the author clearly see the structure of the document independently of the specified presentation
Some techniques for different languages are listed below, organized by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines checkpoints.

WCAG Checkpoint 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element [Priority 1]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 9.1 and WCAG checkpoint 13.10.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.1

WCAG Checkpoint 1.2 Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map. [Priority 1]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.5 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.2

HTML: Ask the author to identify regions in an image map, or to describe how the coordinates will be used so that a form-based input method can be generated.

Synchronize the auditory description with the audio track as per WCAG checkpoint 1.4. Refer to WCAG checkpoint 1.1 for information about textual equivalents for visual information.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.3

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.4

WCAG Checkpoint 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map. [Priority 3]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.2 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.5

HTML: Use the alt associated with area elements to build a redundant text navigation bar

WCAG Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.1

General: Prompt the author to identify a class, or markup element for uses of color.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.2

General

Provide a monochrome preview for the author to test themselves.

WCAG Checkpoint 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 6 and WCAG guideline 11.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.1

General

[-Cprefer-w3c]

For mathematical content use MathML [[MATHML]], TeX or LaTeX.
For tabular data (for example timetables) use an HTML table, or XML.
In some cases it is helplful to include a graphic form as well as a markup-based form. For example, a graph may be presented along with the XML source data used to generate it. Or it may be an SVG image [[SVG]] which contains the source data within the SVG file, as RDF [[RDF]].

WCAG Checkpoint 3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.3

Text / hypertext

Recognize formatting patterns and convert them to style rules.
Provide a view which allows the author to edit the layout and styling effects independently of the text content.

WCAG Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.5

Text / hypertext

Prompt the author to identify headings and subheadings
Provide an "outline" or "structure" view which allows the author to easily grasp the heading structure, and edit it.

WCAG Checkpoint 3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.6

text / hypertext

Include lists (marked as lists) in a collapsible structure view

WCAG Checkpoint 3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.7

HTML: Automatically include (configurable or localized) quotation marks around quotations. This will encourage authors to use the markup, and not to misuse it.

Where material appears within quote marks ask the author if this is a quotation.

WCAG Checkpoint 4.1 Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions). [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 4.1

Text / hypertext

Use a dictionary lookup to recognize words, and changes in the natural language used.
Provide an option in spellcheckers to identify a word or phrase that is not recognised as being in a natural language other than the primary language of the document.

WCAG Checkpoint 4.2 Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 4.2

HTML: Ask the author to provide an expansion for abbr and acronym elements or confirm that a previously supplied one should be used again.
General: Provide a dictionary mechanism that recognizes abbreviations and prompts the author to include appropriate markup.

WCAG Checkpoint 4.3 Identify the primary natural language of a document. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 4.3

General:: Ask the author to identify the language of any document. Provide a mechanism for setting a default.

WCAG Checkpoint 5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.1

WCAG Checkpoint 5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells. [Priority 1]

For example, in HTML, use THEAD, TFOOT, and TBODY to group rows, COL and COLGROUP to group columns, and the "axis", "scope", and "headers" attributes, to describe more complex relationships among data.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.2

HTML: Ask the author to group columns, rows, or blocks of cells that are related.

WCAG Checkpoint 5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version). [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 3.3.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.3

HTML

Prompt the author to identify tables which are used as layout devices.
For layout tables, provide a linearized version, and offer it as a link from the table or as a replacement. An example tool which linearizes tables is tablin. It is also possible to provide a link direct to tablin [[TABLIN]].

WCAG Checkpoint 5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.4

WCAG Checkpoint 5.5 Provide summaries for tables. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.5

HTML

In a table creation wizard, include a summary or caption dialog
Render the caption, title and summary of a table, or prompt for content.
Amaya's user interface guides the author to include a caption for tables,in the following way: When the author creates a table, a dialog is generated which asks for number of rows, columns, border width
The author selects the appropriate information and a table is created. The cursor is placed at the position of the table caption. The status line, which appears at the bottom of the image, shows that the position is in the caption element of the table. (This is a standard part of the Amaya user interface).

WCAG Checkpoint 5.6 Provide abbreviations for header labels. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.6

HTML: Prompt for an abbreviated form of each table header (th)

WCAG Checkpoint 6.1 Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.1

HTML: Provide a "draft" view which does not apply styling.

WCAG Checkpoint 6.2 Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.2

SVG: Prompt for appropriate changes to title and desc elements which are children of the target of an animate.
HTML: See also frames.

Refer also to WCAG guideline 1.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.3

HTML

Prompt for server-side alternatives for scripts and applets
Prompt for noscript content for each script.
Prompt for alternative content for applets and programmatic objects (for example object elements which have a code attribute).

WCAG Checkpoint 6.4 For scripts and applets, ensure that event handlers are input device-independent. [Priority 2]

Refer to the definition of device independence.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.4

Applet development

Prompt the author to include device-independent means of activation

WCAG Checkpoint 6.5 Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.5

HTML

Ask the author for:

appropriate links and content to include in a noframes element
a server-side alternative to applets and script functions

WCAG Checkpoint 7.1 Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.1

WCAG Checkpoint 7.2 Until user agents allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink (i.e., change presentation at a regular rate, such as turning on and off). [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.2

WCAG Checkpoint 7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 8.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.3

WCAG Checkpoint 7.5 Until user agents provide the ability to stop auto-redirect, do not use markup to redirect pages automatically. Instead, configure the server to perform redirects. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.5

Refer also to WCAG guideline 6.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 8.1

WCAG Checkpoint 9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape. [Priority 1]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.1, WCAG checkpoint 1.2, and WCAG checkpoint 1.5.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.1

HTML: where regions are not easily defined, ask the author to provide information that can be used to generate a form-based input method and explains how the coordinates input will be used. For example, on a map the input might be used to lookup latitude and longitude of a point and then give information about that point.

WCAG Checkpoint 9.2 Ensure that any element that has its own interface can be operated in a device-independent manner. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 8.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.2

WCAG Checkpoint 9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.3

WCAG Checkpoint 9.4 Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.4

HTML: Where there are only a few links that change in each page of a collection, ask the author if they should receive focus first. If so, then give them a tabindex, leaving the rest to after the tabindexed links have been focussed.

WCAG Checkpoint 9.5 Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.5

HTML: Ask authors to specify an accesskey for links that appear common to a number of pages

WCAG Checkpoint 10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.1

HTML: Where a link or active element will spawn a new window, prompt the author for title text to make this clear.

WCAG Checkpoint 10.2 Until user agents support explicit associations between labels and form controls, for all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure that the label is properly positioned. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 12.4.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.2

WCAG Checkpoint 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.4

HTML: Prompt the author for default place-holder text. Offer the value of the name attribute as a default.

WCAG Checkpoint 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.5

WCAG Checkpoint 11.2 Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.2

WCAG Checkpoint 11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.) [Priority 3]

Note. Use content negotiation where possible.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.3

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.4

WCAG Checkpoint 12.1 Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.1

HTML

Prompt the author for a short, human-readable title for each frame. Default text presented in the prompt could use the title defined for the document referenced in the src

WCAG Checkpoint 12.2 Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.2

HTML

Prompt the author for a longdesc for each frame in a frameset.
Prompt the author to add a noframes section to the frameset. Encourage the author to include sufficient links to navigate the site, and relevant information. For example, where a frameset defines a navigation frame and a welcome page, include the content of each of these frames in the noframes.

WCAG Checkpoint 12.3 Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 3.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.3

HTML: Where there are more than 10 choices in a list (select, checkbox or radio boxes) ask the author to identify subgroups

WCAG Checkpoint 12.4 Associate labels explicitly with their controls. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.4

HTML: Ask authors to mark explicitly the labels for form inputs (input and textarea elements)

WCAG Checkpoint 13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.1

General: Prompt the author to provide text which can be used as a title for a link.

WCAG Checkpoint 13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites. [Priority 2]

Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 13.5.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.2

General: Ask authors for information about a page or site. If its function is known (see also WCAG checkpoint 13.9) add this information as metadata.

WCAG Checkpoint 13.3 Provide information about the general layout of a site (e.g., a site map or table of contents). [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.3

General: Prompt the author to provide a link or content describing the structure of the site, and its accessibility features.

WCAG Checkpoint 13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner. [Priority 2]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.4

WCAG Checkpoint 13.5 Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.5

WCAG Checkpoint 13.6 Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group. [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.6

HTML: Ask authors if lists of links are a group and should be a map.

WCAG Checkpoint 13.9 Provide information about document collections (i.e., documents comprising multiple pages.). [Priority 3]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.9

General

Pattern-matching - ask authors to specify the role of pages linked from a navigation bar.
Where common names are used (search, home, map) as links, ask the author to confirm these functions for use in linking.

WCAG Checkpoint 13.10 Provide a means to skip over multi-line ASCII art. [Priority 3]

Refer to WCAG checkpoint 1.1 and the example of ascii art in the glossary.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.10

HTML: Where a PRE element is used with substantial punctuation and non-words, ask for text alternative.

WCAG Checkpoint 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content. [Priority 1]

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 14.1

General

Provide readability ratings for text.
Provide a thesaurus function
Provide a grammar-checking function

WCAG Checkpoint 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. [Priority 3]

Refer also to WCAG guideline 1.

Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 14.2

[#C+Rinclude-pro-descs] Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

For example, include captions, an auditory description, and a collated text transcript with prepackaged movies. [-Cno-default-alt]

Use formats that allow for accessible annotation to be included in the files, such as SMIL, PNG, and SVG.
Provide long descriptions, and associated text files with appropriate text equivalent in clip-art collections.
Provide video description files with prepackaged video.
Provide text caption files for prepackaged audio, or video with auditory track(s).
Including pre-written descriptions for all multimedia files (e.g., clip-art) packaged with the tool will save authors time and effort, cause a significant number of professionally written descriptions to circulate on the Web, provide authors with convenient models to emulate when they write their own descriptions, and show authors the importance of description writing.
[-Chave-alt-registry]

[#C+1no-default-alt] Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty.

For example, prompt the author for a text equivalent of an image. If the author has already provided a text equivalent for the same image used in another document, offer to reuse that text and prompt the author for confirmation. If the tool automatically generates a "Search" icon, it would be appropriate to automatically reuse the previously authored text equivalent for that icon. Refer also to [#Cinclude-pro-descs] and [#Chave-alt-registry].

Note: Human-authored equivalent alternatives may be available for an object (for example, through [#Chave-alt-registry] and/or [#Cinclude-pro-descs]). It is appropriate for the tool to offer these to the author as defaults.

Items used throughout a Website, such as graphical navigation bars, should have standard alternative information. However the author should be prompted to edit or approve this the first time it is used in a site, and when the destination of the links is changed by the author.
If the author has not specified alternative text for an IMG, or specified that none is required, default to having no "alt" attribute, so that an accessibility problem will be noted. [-Cnotify-on-schedule]
Where an object has already been used in a document, the tool should offer the alternative content that was supplied for the first or most recent use as a default.

[#C+3have-alt-registry] Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents for multimedia objects.

Note: These alternative equivalents may be packaged with the tool, written by the author, retrieved from the Web, etc.

Maintain a database registry that associates object identity information with alternative information. Whenever an object is used and an equivalent alternative is provided, ask the author whether they want to add the object (or identifying information) and the alternative information to the database. In the case of a text equivalent, the alternate information may be stored in the document source. For more substantial information (such as video captions or audio descriptions), the information may be stored externally and linked from the document source. Allow different alternative information to be associated with a single object.
Allow authors to make keyword searches of a description database (to simplify the task of finding relevant images, sound files, etc.). A paper describing a method to create searchable databases for video and audio files is available (refer to [[SEARCHABLE]]).
Suggest pre-written descriptions as default text whenever one of the associated files is inserted into the author's document.
The use of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [[RDF10]], or formats like SVG can enable a tool to maintain and use libraries of information within the tool and on the Web.
This checkpoint is priority 3, meaning that in itself, it does not have a critical effect on an authoring tool's likelihood of producing accessible mark-up. However, certain implementations of this Alternative Information Management Mechanism (AIMM) [[APROMPT]] have the potential to simultaneously satisfy several higher priority checkpoints and dramatically improve the usability of an access aware authoring tool. In particular:
1. The AIMM [[APROMPT]] should maintain a list of associations between object file names and authored responses to prompts for alternative information (per [#Cprovide-missing-alt]). The alternative information may take the form of short strings (i.e., "alt"-text) or pointers to descriptive files (i.e., "longdesc", transcripts, etc.). Multiple associations for the same object for different languages or contexts should also be handled.
2. The AIMM [[APROMPT]] would offer the associated alternative information as a default whenever the appropriate associated object is selected for insertion. If no previous association is found, the field should be left empty (i.e., no purely rule-generated alternative information should be used). Note: The term "default" implies that the alternative information is offered for the author's approval. The term does not imply that the default alternative information is automatically placed without the author's approval. Such automatic placement may only occur when in situations where the function of the object is known with certainty, per [#Cno-default-alt]. Such a situation might arise in the case of a "navigation bar builder" that places a navigation bar at the bottom of every page on a site. In this case, it would be appropriate to use the same "alt"-text automatically for every instance of a particular image (with the same target) on every page.
3. The alternative information mechanism should be closely integrated with the pre-written alternative information provided for all packaged multimedia files, per [#Cinclude-pro-descs]. This would allow the alternative information to be automatically retrieved whenever the author selected one of the packaged objects for insertion. An important benefit of the system would be the ease of adding a keyword search capability that would allow efficient location of multimedia based on its alternative information.
Sketch does not do this directly, but implementing SVG completely will mean that equivalent alternative content can be automatically available as part of each graphic component or image, so using any library of SVG (for example, the collection of available files) that conforms to [#Cinclude-pro-descs] will achieve this.
Word does not do this

Further techniques for this guideline are given in the appendix Techniques for User Prompting

[+Gidentify-markup]Provide ways of checking and correcting inaccessible content.

Many authoring tools allow authors to create documents with little or no knowledge about the underlying markup. To ensure accessibility, authoring tools must be designed so that they can (where possible, automatically) identify inaccessible markup, and enable its correction even when the markup itself is hidden from the author.

Authoring tool support for the creation of accessible Web content should account for different authoring styles. Authors who can configure the tool's accessibility features to support their regular work patterns are more likely to accept accessible authoring practices (refer to [#Gintegrate-naturally]). For example, some authors may prefer to be alerted to accessibility problems when they occur, whereas others may prefer to perform a check at the end of an editing session. This is analogous to programming environments that allow users to decide whether to check for correct code during editing or at compilation.

Note: Validation of markup is an essential aspect of checking the accessibility of content.

Checkpoints:

[#C+Rnotify-on-schedule] Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems.

Note: Accessibility problems should be detected automatically where possible. Where this is not possible, the tool may need to prompt the author to make decisions or to manually check for certain types of problems.

Where the tools cannot test for accessibility errors, provide the author with the necessary information, wizards, etc. to check for themselves. [-Cintegrate-features]
Include alerts for WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]] Priority 1 checkpoints in the default configuration.
Provide an editing view that shows equivalent alternatives in the main content view to make it clear that they are necessary. This will make it obvious when they are missing.
Provide a preview mode that uses alternative content. Although this can give authors a clear understanding of some problems very easily, it should be made clear that there are many ways in which a page may be presented (aurally, text-only, text with pictures separately, on a small screen, on a large screen, etc.). A view that renders the document as it might appear without technologies such as style sheets and images enabled, or the ability to turn those features off and on in the editing view, will also give an author some idea of whether a document's logical order has been correctly preserved, whether alternative text is appropriate, etc.
Highlight problems detected when documents are opened, when an editing or insertion action is completed, or while an author is editing. Using CSS classes to indicate accessibility problems will enable the author to easily configure the presentation of errors.
Where there is a change in the writing script used, prompt the author to identify whether there has been a change in language
Alert authors to accessibility problems when saving.
Accessibility problems can be highlighted using strategies similar to spell checking within a word processor. Accessibility alerts within the document can be linked to context sensitive help. [-Cdont-require-knowledge].
Allow authors to choose different alert levels based on the priority of authoring accessibility recommendations.
If interruptive warnings are used, provide a means for the author to quickly set the warning to non-obtrusive to avoid frustration.
There are online tools whose output can be integrated with the user interface. Other tools are available for incorporation in existing software, either as licensed products or in some cases as "open source" solutions. The WAI Evaluation and Repair group maintains information about available tools [[WAI-ER]].
Refer also to the WAI accessibility references listed in techniques for [-Csupport-access-features].
The Web Accessibility Initiative's Protocols and Formats group have a draft set of notes about creating accessible markup languages [[XMLGL]].
Amaya currently checks for validity, but the only warning of invalid markup appears in the structure view. The Amaya developers are investigating automating an accessibility check and author notification. Where Amaya detects an error, it identifies and highlights the incorrect code in the structure view, allowing the author to delete it.
Sketch does not conform to this checkpoint. It could identify image components that did not have associated alternative content (Priority 1 requirement).
Word has spell and grammar check, but no validity or accessibility

[#C+Rdont-require-knowledge] Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems.

At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the accessibility checking required by [#Cnotify-on-schedule]

The WAI Evaluation and Repair group [[WAI-ER]] is developing a document that discusses detailed techniques for repairing accessibility errors in content according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. A draft of that document is available [[AUTO-TOOL]].
Assist authors in ways that are consistent with the look and feel of the authoring tool.
Provide context sensitive-help for accessibility errors. [+Gprovide-help]
Where there are site-wide errors, to make correction more efficient, allow the author to make site-wide changes or corrections. For example, this may be appropriate for a common error in markup, but may not be appropriate in providing a text equivalent that is appropriate for one use of an image but completely inappropriate for the other uses of the image on the same site (or even the same page).
Allow authors to control both the nature and timing of the correction process.
Provide a mechanism for authors to navigate sequentially among uncorrected accessibility errors [-Cnavigation-access].
Possible implementation strategy for Amaya: where there are errors in a document Amaya could alert the author and warn that the document must be changed, and present the structure view highlighting areas where it has changed the markup, allowing the author to abort the editing session or save the changed version under a new name.

2notify-changesAllow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool.

Note: The author may have included or imported markup that enhances accessibility but is not recognized by the tool.

Provide a summary of all automated structural changes that may affect accessibility.
Provide options for the author to confirm or override removal of markup on a change-by-change basis or as a batch process.
If changes to the markup are necessary for the tool to further process the document (for example, a tool that requires valid markup when a document is opened), inform the author.
Do not change the DTD without notifying the author.

[#C+3progress-feedback] Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status.

Provide a list of all accessibility errors found in a Web page.
Provide a summary of accessibility problems remaining by type and/or by number.
HoTMetaL 5 has an accessibility checker that says how many errors are found in a document.
Bobby provides a list of errors found in a Web page.

[#C+3allow-transformation] Allow the author to transform presentation markup that is misused to convey structure into structural markup, and to transform presentation markup used for style into style sheets.

Implement XSLT [[XSLT]] together with a user-interface for expressing transformations. [-Cprefer-w3c]
Some examples of transformations include: HTML table-based layout into CSS, HTML BR to the P element, HTML (deprecated) FONT into heuristically or author-determined structure, Word processor styles to Web styles, HTML deprecated presentational markup into CSS, XHTML span into ruby, MathML presentational markup to semantic markup.
Allow the author to define transformations for imported documents that have presentation, rather than structural, markup.
Allow the author to create style rules based on the formatting properties of an element, and then apply the rule to other elements in the document, to assist conversion of documents to the use of style sheets
Include pre-written transformations to rationalize multiple tables, and to transform (deprecated) presentation HTML into style sheets.
Remember that accessibility information, including attributes or properties of the elements being transformed, must be preserved - see [#Cleave-access-content]
Amaya provides a language for specifying structure transformations, and a large number of predefined transformations are included.
Word allows the author to do this directly through prominent user interface features, as well as through the search and replace mechanism, and through macro scripting.

Further techniques for this guideline are given in the appendix Techniques for User Prompting

[+Gintegrate-naturally]Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel".

When a new feature is added to an existing software tool without proper integration, the result is often an obvious discontinuity. Differing color schemes, fonts, interaction styles, and even software stability can be factors affecting author acceptance of the new feature. In addition, the relative prominence of different ways to accomplish the same task can influence which one the author chooses. Therefore, it is important that creating accessible content be a natural process when using an authoring tool.

Checkpoints:

[#C+2integrate-features] Ensure that functionality related to accessible authoring practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the tool.

Ensure that author can utilize the tool's accessible authoring features by the same interaction styles used for other features in the program. For example, if the tool makes use of onscreen symbols such as underlines or coloration change rather than dialogs for conveying information, then the same interface techniques should be used to convey accessibility information.
The same fonts, text sizes, colors, symbols, etc. that characterize other program features should also characterize those dealing with accessibility.
Include considerations for accessibility - such as the "alt" and "longdesc" attributes of the HTML IMG element - right below the "src" attribute in a dialogue box, not buried behind an "Advanced..." button.
Allow efficient and fast access to accessibility-related settings with as few steps as possible needed to make any changes that will generate accessible content.
The accessibility features should be designed as integral components of the authoring tool application, not plug-ins or other peripheral components that need to be separately obtained, installed, configured or executed
The default installation of the authoring tool should include all accessibility features enabled. The author may have the option to disable these features later on.
A help page that describes how to make an HTML image map should include adding alternative information for each AREA element in the MAP as part of the process. Any examples of code should give either block content with text links, or AREA elements that all have relevant "alt" attribute values.
When an author creates an HTML frameset, suggest the links from the navigation bar (and perhaps the content of the "first page") as the content for the NOFRAMES element.
In Amaya some accessibility features are part of relevant dialogs. Others, such as longdesc and title attributes must be separately generated by the author. The development team will integrate these into the relevant dialogues in future releases.
Sketch conforms to this checkpoint to the extent that it provides accessibility features.
Word integrates most of the accessibility features it has: style/structure, text equivalents, etc. Source editing is passed to another application.

[#C+2visible-means] Ensure that accessible authoring practices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] Priority 1 checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author.

When the author has selected text to format, the use of CSS should be emphasized rather than the (deprecated) HTML FONT element.
Highlight the most accessible solutions when presenting choices for the author.
Providing an editing view that shows equivalent alternatives in the main content view will make it clear that they are necessary, and will make it obvious when they are missing.
If there is more than one option for the author, and one option is more accessible than another, place the more accessible option first and make it the default. For example, when requesting equivalent alternatives for an image with the HTML OBJECT element, offer an unchecked option for a null value (i.e., there is no content, implying the image has no real function) with the cursor positioned in the entry field for alternative text (and, if available, provide the appropriate value from the "Alternative Information Management Mechanism"; refer to [#Chave-alt-registry]) rather than offering the filename as a default suggestion, or selecting the null "alt" value as a default.
Amaya's user interface guides the author to produce structured content, with presentation elements separated into style sheets. Providing an equivalent alternative is mandatory at the time of inserting some elements.
Sketch conforms to this checkpoint to the extent that it provides accessibility features - grouping controls are part of the standard toolbar, and style operations are available from the standard menus.
Word does this with some features such as style (the interface for dealing with style is extremely well-integrated, although the alternative approach is at least as obvious), and to a lesser extent outlining. Adding equivalent alternatives for images requires knowing how it is done - it is not obvious.

[+Gprovide-help]Promote accessibility in help and documentation.

Web authors may not be familiar with accessibility issues that arise when creating Web content. Therefore, help and documentation must include explanations of accessibility problems, and should demonstrate solutions with examples.

Checkpoints:

[#C+1document-features] Document all features that promote the production of accessible content.

Ensure that accessibility solutions are present in all help text descriptions of markup practices (e.g., HTML IMG elements should appear with an "alt" attribute and a "longdesc" attribute wherever appropriate).
Ensure that electronic documentation complies with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]]
Link from help text to any automated correction utilities.
Provide examples of accessible design practices in online tutorials.
Include help documentation for all accessible authoring practices supported by the tool.
Link those mechanisms used to identify accessibility problems (e.g., icons, outlining or other emphasis within the user interface) to help files.
Amaya help pages for images and image maps [[AMAYA-HELP-IMG]] include providing text alternatives as part of the process. There is a help page on configuring Amaya, that documents how to change the default keyboard bindings.
Sketch conforms to this checkpoint to the extent that it provides accessibility features.
Word attempts to document all accessibility features.

[#C+2accessibility-everywhere] Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including examples.

In help text, when explaining the accessibility issues related to non-deprecated elements, emphasize appropriate solutions rather than explicitly discouraging the use of the element.
Explain the importance of utilizing accessibility features generally and for specific instances.
Take a broad view of accessibility-related practices; for example, do not refer to text equivalents as being "for blind authors" but rather as "for authors who are not viewing images".
Avoid labelling accessibility features of the tool with a "handicapped" icon, as this can give the impression that accessible design practices only benefit disabled authors.
In help text, emphasize accessibility features that benefit multiple groups. In particular the principles of supporting flexible display and control choices have obvious advantages for the emergence of hands free, eyes-free, voice-activated browsing devices such as Web phone, the large number of slow Web connections, and Web users who prefer text-only browsing to avoid "image clutter".
Provide examples of all accessibility solutions in help text, including those of lower priority in WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]].
Implement context-sensitive help for all special accessibility terms as well as tasks related to accessibility.
Document the tool's conformance to ATAG 1.0 [[ATAG10]].
Include current versions of, or links to relevant specifications in the documentation (e.g. HTML 4 [[HTML4]], CSS [[CSS2]].) This is particularly relevant for markup languages that are easily hand edited, such as most XML languages [[XML]].
Include a tutorial specifically on checking for and correcting Web accessibility problems.
Link to or provide URIs for more information on accessible Web authoring, such as WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]], and other accessibility-related resources.
Ensure that documentation examples conform to WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]], at least to the level that the tool conforms to ATAG 1.0 [[ATAG10]].
Clearly label any examples that display practices that reduce accessibility.
Accessible authoring features are added to the documentation as they are incorporated into Amaya, as part of the normal documentation of the relevant feature.
Sketch conforms to this checkpoint to the extent that it provides accessibility features.
Word documentation includes integrated accessibility requirements in some areas, but some areas need further work.

[#C+3emphasize-universal-benefit] In a dedicated section, document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessible content.

Amaya documentation has a basic accessibility section, which is an option in Amaya's help menu.
Word documentation has a dedicated accessibility section.

[+Gmake-accessible]Ensure that the authoring tool is accessible to authors with disabilities.

The authoring tool is a software program with standard user interface elements and as such must be designed according to relevant user interface accessibility guidelines. When custom interface components are created, it is essential that they be accessible through the standard access mechanisms for the relevant platform so that assistive technologies can be used with them.

Some additional user interface design considerations apply specifically to Web authoring tools. For instance, authoring tools must ensure that the author can edit (in an editing view) using one set of stylistic preferences and publish using different styles. Authors with low vision may need large text when editing but want to publish with a smaller default text size. The style preferences of the editing view must not affect the markup of the published document.

Authoring tools must also ensure that the author can navigate a document efficiently while editing, regardless of disability. Authors who use screen readers, refreshable braille displays, or screen magnifiers can make limited use (if at all) of graphical artifacts that communicate the structure of the document and act as signposts when traversing it. Authors who cannot use a mouse (e.g., people with physical disabilities or who are blind) must use the slow and tiring process of moving one step at a time through the document to access the desired content, unless more efficient navigation methods are available. Authoring tools should therefore provide an editing view that conveys a sense of the overall structure and allows structured navigation.

Note: Documentation, help files, and installation are part of the software and need to be available in an accessible form.

Checkpoints:

[#C-Ruse-system-conventions] Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and conventions (Priority 1 for standards and conventions that are essential to accessibility; Priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility; Priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility).

The techniques for this checkpoint include references to checklists and guidelines for a number of platforms and to general guidelines for accessible applications.

Not all of the guidelines and checklists for application accessibility are prioritized according to their impact on accessibility. For instance, the priorities in "The Microsoft Windows Guidelines for Accessible Software Design" [[MS-SOFTWARE]] are partially determined by a logo requirement program. Therefore developers may need to compare the documents they are using to other guidelines. WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]] and UAAG 1.0 [[UAAG10]] both have priority systems that are directly compatible with the priorities in [[ATAG10]].
User Interfaces are sometimes built as Web content, and, as such, should follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]]. [+Gaccess-support]
Sketch uses standard APIs, provides help documentation in HTML that is not completely accessible, and fails to provide full accessibility to some functions.
Word seems to conform to this checkpoint.
Guidelines for specific platforms include
1. "IBM Guidelines for Writing Accessible Applications Using 100% Pure Java" [[JAVA-ACCESS]] R. Schwerdtfeger, IBM Special Needs Systems.
2. "An ICE Rendezvous Mechanism for X Window System Clients" [[ICE-RAP]], W. Walker. A description of how to use the ICE and RAP protocols for X Window clients.
3. "Information for Developers About Microsoft Active Accessibility" [[MSAA]] Microsoft Corporation.
4. "The Inter-Client communication conventions manual" [[ICCCM]]. A protocol for communication between clients in the X Window system.
5. "Lotus Notes accessibility guidelines" [[NOTES-ACCESS]] IBM Special Needs Systems.
6. "Java accessibility guidelines and checklist" [[JAVA-CHECKLIST]] IBM Special Needs Systems.
7. "The Java Tutorial. Trail: Creating a GUI with JFC/Swing" [[JAVA-TUT]]. An online tutorial that describes how to use the Swing Java Foundation Class to build an accessible User Interface.
8. "Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines" [[APPLE-HI]] Apple Computer Inc.
9. "The Microsoft Windows Guidelines for Accessible Software Design" [[MS-SOFTWARE]].
Guidelines for specific software types include
1. "The Three-tions of Accessibility-Aware HTML Authoring Tools" [[ACCESS-AWARE]], J. Richards.
2. "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (Working Draft)" J. Gunderson, I. Jacobs eds. (This is a work in progress) [[UAAG10]]
General guidelines for producing accessible software include:
1. "Accessibility for applications designers" [[MS-ENABLE]] Microsoft Corporation.
2. "Application Software Design Guidelines" [[TRACE-REF]] compiled by G. Vanderheiden. A thorough reference work.
3. "Designing for Accessibility" [[SUN-DESIGN]] Eric Bergman and Earl Johnson. This paper discusses specific disabilities including those related to hearing, vision, and cognitive function.
4. "EITAAC Desktop Software standards" [[EITAAC]] Electronic Information Technology Access Advisory (EITACC) Committee.
5. "Requirements for Accessible Software Design" [[ED-DEPT]] US Department of Education, version 1.1 March 6, 1997.
6. "Software Accessibility" [[IBM-ACCESS]] IBM Special Needs Systems
7. "Towards Accessible Human-Computer Interaction" [[SUN-HCI]] Eric Bergman, Earl Johnson, Sun Microsytems 1995. A substantial paper, with a valuable print bibliography.
8. "What is Accessible Software" [[WHAT-IS]] James W. Thatcher, Ph.D., IBM, 1997. This paper gives a short example-based introduction to the difference between software that is accessible, and software that can be used by some assistive technologies.
The following are common requirements for producing accessible software. This list does not necessarily cover all requirements for all platforms, and items may not apply to some software.
Following Standards
- Draw text and objects using system conventions.
- Make mouse, keyboard, and API activation of events consistent.
- Provide a user interface that is "familiar" (to system standards, or across platform).
- Use system standard indirections and APIs wherever possible.
- Ensure all dialogs, subwindows, etc., satisfy these requirements.
- Avoid blocking assistive technology functions (sticky/mouse keys, screenreader controls, etc.) where possible.
Configurability
- Allow users to create profiles.
- Allow control of timing, colors, sizes, input/output devices and media.
- Allow users to reshape the user interface - customize toolbars, keyboard commands, etc.
Input Device Independence
- Provide Keyboard access to all functions.
- Document all keyboard bindings.
- Provide customizable keyboard shortcuts for common functions.
- Provide logical navigation order for the keyboard interface.
- Avoid repetitive keying wherever possible.
- Provide mouse access to functions where possible.
Icons, Graphics, Sounds
- Provide graphical (text) equivalents for sound warnings.
- Allow sounds to be turned off.
- Provide text equivalents for images/icons.
- Use customizable (or removable) colors/patterns.
- Ensure high contrast is available (as default setting).
- Provide text equivalents for all audio.
- Use icons that are resizeable or available in multiple sizes.
Layout
- Do not rely on color alone for meaning. Use color for differentiation, in combination with accessible cues (text equivalents, natural language, etc.).
- Position related text labels and objects consistently, and in an obvious manner (labels before objects is recommended).
- Group related controls.
- Ensure default window sizes fit in screen.
- Allow for window resizing (very small to very large).
User Focus
- Clearly identify the user focus (and expose it via API).
- Unexpected events should not be caused by viewing content (for example by moving the focus to a new point).
- Allow user control of timing - delays, time-dependent response, etc.
- Allow for navigation between as well as within windows.
Documentation
- Provide documentation for all features of the tool.
- Ensure that help functions are accessible.
Amaya is currently available for two platforms: Unix and Windows. There is some work required on both platforms to bring it into line with conventions, in particular to provide conformance with the User Agent Guidelines [[UAAG10]], and to implement Microsoft Active Accessibility [[MSAA]] in the Windows version. It is being re-written to take advantage of the improved accessibility support possible in Gnome (it currently uses Motif) in the Unix version. The Documentation is all available online as HTML and has been reviewed to ensure it conforms to WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

[#C+1independent-styles] Allow the author to change the presentation within editing views without affecting the document markup.

This allows the author to edit the document according to personal requirements, without changing the way the document is rendered when published.

In representing the source structure of a document mark elements with text brackets rather than with purely graphic representations. For example, "</>" is regarded as a text bracket, since it is made of character elements.
Allow the author to create audio style sheets using a graphical representation rather than an audio one (with accessible representation, of course).
An authoring tool that offers a "rendered view" of a document, such as a browser preview mode, may provide an editing view whose presentation can be controlled independently of the rendered view.
A WYSIWYG editor may allow an author to specify a local style sheet, that will override the "published" style of the document in the editing view.
Amaya allows the author to create local style sheets, and to enable or disable each style sheet that is linked to a document.
Sketch does not conform to this checkpoint except for allowing magnification. The required functionality could be achieved by implementing SVG with user style sheets.
Word makes use of a development application for source editing that provides various types of control. Word itself allows magnification, use of white text on blue background for high-contrast, and it allows Operating System settings to control the presentation.

[#C+1edit-elements] Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible fashion.

An authoring tool may offer several editing views of the same document, such as a source mode that allows direct editing of all properties.
Allow the author to individually edit each attribute of the elements in an HTML or XML document, for example, through a menu. Note: This must include the ability to add valid values for attributes that are not present, as well as changing current values of attributes.
For a site management tool, allow the author to render a site map in text form (e.g., as a structured tree file).
Allow the author to specify that alternative information (or identifiers such as a URI or filename) are rendered in place of images or other multimedia content while editing.
Include attributes / properties of elements in a view of the structure.
Provide access to a list of properties via a "context menu" for each element.
Graphically represented elements cannot be identified by assistive technologies that render text as braille, speech, or large print, unless there is appropriate information available as text. For example, some HTML authoring tools render start and end tags as graphics. Such tag representations need to have a text equivalent to be accessible to assistive technologies.
Amaya allows each attribute to be edited through the menu or through the structure view. Element types can be assigned through the menu system.
Sketch does not conform to this checkpoint. Currently some properties can be edited in an accessible fashion, while others require the use of a graphic interface.
Word enables editing of most properties through dialogs or wizards. It also enables editing of the source (through another application).

[#C+1navigation-access] Ensure that the editing view allows navigation via the structure of the document in an accessible fashion.

Some tools, such as those used to translate from one format to another, do not have an editing view.
Allow the author to navigate via an "outline" or "structure" of the document being edited. This is particularly important for people who are using a slow interface such as a small braille device, or speech output, or a single switch input device. It is equivalent to the ability provided by a mouse interface to move rapidly around the document.
To minimally satisfy this checkpoint, allow navigation from element to element.
In a hypertext document allow the author to navigate among links and active elements of a document.
For SMIL and other time-based presentations, allow the author to navigate temporally through the presentation.
Allow the author to navigate regions of an image, or the document tree for an image expressed in a structured language such as Scalable Vector Graphics [[SVG]].
Implement the HTML "accesskey" attribute, and activate it in editing views
Amaya provides a structure view, that can be navigated element by element, a Table of Contents view, that allows navigation via the headings, and a links view, that allows sequential navigation via the links in the document. It also provides configurable keyboard navigation of the HTML structure - parent, child, next and previous sibling elements.
Sketch allows navigation of the image structure through mouse-based selection and by the keyboard.
Word provides an outline view that allows user-configurable navigation and viewing of the document structure. It also provides a project view to manage multiple pages at once.

[#C+2edit-structure] Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessible fashion.

An authoring tool may offer a structured tree view of the document, allowing the author to move among, select and cut, copy or paste elements of the document.
A WYSIWYG tool may allow elements to be selected, and copied or moved while retaining their structure.
A tool may allow transformation from one element type to another, such as
1. HTML paragraphs to lists and back;
2. HTML BR to P;
3. SMIL transformations between switch, excl, and par;
4. HTML (deprecated) FONT into heuristically determined structure;
5. Lists of lists to tables and back;
6. MathML transformations between semantic and presentation markup;
7. Transforming the SVG g element to symbol;
8. Giving a structural role to a part of an element, such as an SVG g or an HTML p element.
Amaya allows the author to select elements (including containers) and cut, copy and paste them with their attributes and properties in any of the formatted, structure and alternate views.
Word's outline view is an editing view.

[#C+2have-search] Allow the author to search within editing views.

Search functions are already present in almost every text and hypertext editing tools. The simplest allow searching for a sequence of characters, while more powerful searches can include the ability to perform searches that are case sensitive or case-insensitive, the ability to replace a search string, the ability to repeat a previous search to find the next or previous occurrence, or to select multiple occurrences with a single search.
The ability to search for a particular type of structure is useful in a structured document, structured image such as a complex SVG image, etc.
In an image editor, the ability to select an area by properties (such as color, or closeness of color) is useful. This is common in middle range and high end image processing software.
The ability to search a database for particular content, or to search a collection of files at once (a simple implementation of the latter is the Unix function "grep") is an important tool in managing large collections, especially those that are dynamically converted into Web content.
The use of metadata (per WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]]) can allow for very complex searching of large collections, or of timed presentations. Refer also to the paper "A Comparison of Schemas for Dublin Core-based Video Metadata Representation" [[SEARCHABLE]] for discussion specifically addressing timed multimedia presentations.
Amaya provides a search function. Because all editing views are synchronized, any search text found will be selected in each of the available views.
An implementation for SVG could allow the author to search for and select a text in a text, title, or desc element as well as style or graphic properties.
Word has a very powerful search function that allows searching for text content as well as for various style properties or structure types.

Techniques for User Prompting

These guidelines often refer to the practice of prompting and to a lesser extent alerting. The following guidelines and selected checkpoints make explicit use of them:

[#Gprewritten-descs] (Support the creation of accessible content)
...prompting authors to include equivalent alternative information such as text equivalents, captions,
and auditory descriptions at appropriate times can greatly ease the burden for authors....
- [#Cprovide-missing-alt] (Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). [Relative Priority])
- [#Cno-default-alt] (Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]) For example, prompt the author for a text equivalent of an image....
[#Gidentify-markup] (Provide ways of checking and correcting inaccessible content)
- [#Cnotify-on-schedule] (Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Relative Priority])
  Note: Accessibility problems should be detected automatically where possible. Where this
  is not possible, the tool may need to prompt the author to make decisions or to manually
  check for certain types of problems.

The importance of these concepts in the document and a perceived ambiguity of their meanings has been identified as a source of confusion. This appendix will attempt to clarify the issue.

What does prompting mean?

The word prompting is used in the document to denote all user interface methods by which the author is given an opportunity to add accessible content. The following are responses to concerns raised by developers.

There is no requirement that prompting be modal. In other words, the author should not necessarily be prevented from performing other tasks when accessibility problems exist.
There is no requirement that prompting be dedicated to one accessibility issue. In other words, the author may be presented with a number of issues within one prompt, only one or several of which may relate to accessibility.
There is no requirement that prompting be inflexible. A user-flexible schedule should be an important component of the system.

Note: As a general rule, the implementation of prompting should be governed by [#Cintegrate-features] (Ensure that functionality related to accessible authoring practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the tool. [Priority 2])

User configurable prompting schedule

A user configurable schedule allows individual authors to determine, to some extent, how and when they will be prompted about accessibility issues. For example, authors should have control over the stringency of the checks (i.e., WCAG level A, double-A or triple-A) and the scheduling of prompting (i.e., as problems occur or at the completion of authoring). Of course, the extent of this configurability should be determined by developers on an individual basis. Some tool developers may decide to restrict authors to several global settings while others might allow authors to make fine grained distinctions, such as different scheduling for different types of problems.

Authoring tool support for the creation of accessible Web content should account for different authoring styles. Authors who can configure the tool's accessibility features to support their regular work patterns are more likely to accept accessible authoring practices [-Gintegrate-naturally]. For example, some authors may prefer to be alerted to accessibility problems when they occur, whereas others may prefer to perform a check at the end of an editing session. This is analogous to programming environments that allow users to decide whether to check for correct code during editing or at compilation. (from the introduction to [#Gidentify-markup])

Example:

In Microsoft Word 2000, spelling errors can be flagged and corrected in several ways depending on the preferences that the author has set on the spelling property card. Below is a screen shot of this card:

Screenshot of Word2000 spelling options include checking as you type, suggestions, and what to ignore D

Screenshot of Word2000 spelling options include checking as you type, suggestions, and what to ignore.

Types of Prompting

All authoring tools will have ways of conveying information to users and collecting information in return. These methods vary according to factors such as the design of the tool and the user interface conventions for its platform. The following is relatively generic overview of how these methods can be used for accessibility prompting. Keep in mind that these categories may overlap. For example, an intrusive alert may contain a prompt edit field.

Prompts

Prompts are basically requests for information. On most GUI platforms, prompts take the form of dialog boxes that request information from the user. The author answers the requests by setting modifying control values (i.e. typing text in a textbox or selecting a checkbox). Prompts are relatively unintrusive because they are often displayed at the user's request. For example, when the user has chosen to save a document and the application prompts for the user to enter a name. However, once the author has dismissed a prompt, its message is unavailable unless the user requests it again.

For the purposes of the Guidelines, prompts can be used to encourage authors to provide information required for accessibility. For example, in the case of HTML, a prominently displayed alt-text entry field in an image insertion dialog, would constitute a prompt.

Field Priority:

In the Guidelines, the interface priority of controls related to accessibility is governed by [#Cvisible-means] (Ensure that accessible authoring practices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] Priority 1 checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author.[Priority 2]). This checkpoint does not require that accessibility concerns obscure the other editing tasks. The checkpoint merely emphasizes that these controls should be allotted screen presence that is appropriate for their importance. For example, in MacroMedia's Dreamweaver 2 HTML authoring tool, a property toolbar is displayed with fields that are appropriate to the currently selected element. In cases such as the image element, the author can toggle the toolbar between a limited and extended set of properties. Importantly, in terms of [#Cvisible-means], the alt attribute property is afforded sufficient field priority to appear on the limited version of the toolbar.

Screenshot of Dream Weaver property dialog for image including alt-text field D

Screenshot of Dream Weaver property dialog for image including alt-text field.

Highlighting:

Conformance with [#Cvisible-means] may be reinforced by visually highlighting accessibility features with colour, icons, underlining, etc. For example, in Allaire's HomeSite authoring tool, attention is drawn more explicitly to an accessibility-related prompt fields. In this case, the Homesite tag editor dialog contains symbols, colour changes and explanatory text highlight alt-text as required for HTML 4.0 and necessary for accessibility.

Screenshot of Homesite image tag editor includes red asterix to explanatory note beside alt-text field D

Screenshot of Homesite image tag editor includes red asterix to explanatory note beside alt-text field

Related Prompts:

Sometimes a number of accessible editing tasks are required for a single element. Instead of dispersing these prompts over multiple dialog boxes, it may be more effective to draw them together into one group of controls. In the following example, also from Allaire HomeSite, the multiple accessibility requirements of the HTML input form control (i.e. Access Key, Tab Index, Title and Label Text) are prompted for from within the same dialog.

Screenshot of HomeSite tag editor for input element D

Screenshot of HomeSite tag editor for input element.

Sequential Prompts:

In some cases, authors may benefit from the sequential presentation of a number of prompts. This technique usually takes the form of a wizard or a checker. In the case of a wizard, relatively complex interactions are broken down into a number of simple steps so that later steps can take into account information provided by the user in earlier steps. A checker is a special case of a wizard in which the number of detected errors determines the number of steps.

The first example is a spelling and grammar checker from Microsoft Word 2000. Notice how all the problems are displayed in a standard way: type of problem (i.e. "not in dictionary"), the problem instance (i.e. "There are a few spelling mistakes") and suggested fixes (i.e. a list of suggested correct words). The user also has a number of correcting options, some of which can store responses to affect how the same situation is handled later.

Screenshot of Word2000 spelling and grammar checker D

Screenshot of Word2000 spelling and grammar checker.

In an accessibility checker, the same is true, however the dialog template has to be somewhat more flexible since the problems can range from a missing text string for a multimedia object to missing structural information for a table to improper use of colour. In the following example, from A-Prompt, the author is prompted to add alternate text for an image as part (8 of 20) of a correction run. Notice that, like the spell checker, the prompt includes a statement of the problem (i.e. "missing alternate text for an image"), the problem instance (i.e. earthrise.gif), and suggested fixes (i.e. a suggestion from the alt-text registry, "An earth-rise as seen from the surface of the moon"). In addition, the dialog also has some instructive text to aid the author in writing text if necessary.

Screenshot of the A-prompt missing alt text dialog.

Alerts:

Alerts warn the author that there are problems that need to be addressed. The art of attracting the author's attention is a tricky issue. The way authors are alerted, prompted, or warned can influence their view of the tool and even their opinion of accessible authoring. [-Gintegrate-naturally].

Intrusive Alerts

Intrusive alerts are informative messages that interrupt the editing process for the author. For example, intrusive alerts are often presented when an author's action could cause a loss of data. Intrusive alerts allow problems to be brought to the author's attention immediately. However, authors may resent the constant delays and forced actions. Many people prefer to finish expressing an idea before returning to edit its format. The following screenshot shows an example of an intrusive alert that might be displayed if the author fails to enter Alt-text at an image insertion prompt.

Screenshot of dialog saying you must enter text to describe this image D

Screenshot of dialog saying you must enter text to describe this image.

When the author dismisses an intrusive alert, the program may or may not display a prompt allowing the author make the appropriate action.

Note: While intrusive alerts are the least user-friendly form of prompting, there are situations in which the editing process is complete and publishing to the Web appears imminent. This may be the case when a document composed in a proprietary (non-Web format) is saved out into Web format. In these cases, unintrusive alerts are not an option since there is simply no editing process left. An alternative to a number of alerts might be a number of sequential prompts (i.e. wizard) that could take the user through a process by which the inaccessible proprietary document is converted into an accessible Web document.

Unintrusive Alerts

Unintrusive alerts are interface objects such as icons, underlines, and gentle sounds that can be presented to the author without requiring immediate action. For example, in some word processors misspelled text is highlighted in the text, without forcing the author to make the correction immediately. These alerts allow authors to continue editing with the knowledge that problems will be easy to identify at a later time. However, authors may choose to ignore the alerts altogether. As an example, Microsoft Word 2000 includes the option to underline spelling errors in red and grammatical errors in green. (Note that a user must be able to change this default presentation - users who are red-green colorblind, for example, will not be able to perceive the information being conveyed by this default). When the user right-clicks on the highlighted text, they are presented with several correction options.

Screenshot of Word2000 showing the red and green underlines for spelling and grammar errors D

Screenshot of Word2000 showing the red and green underlines for spelling and grammar errors.

Another Microsoft product, FrontPage 2000, uses unintrusive alerts in its HTML editing environment to indicate syntax errors. As the author types, the syntax is automatically checked. The author is allowed to make syntax errors, but the colour of the text signals that an error has been made.

Screenshot of Frontpage2000 showing the red font used to indicate syntax errors D

Screenshot of Frontpage2000 showing the red font used to indicate syntax errors.

In the context of the Authoring Tool guidelines, such unintrusive alert techniques could be used to indicate which parts of a document or site contain accessibility problems. This will inform the author about the type and number of errors without interrupting their editing process.

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

Accessibility (Also: Accessible)

Within these guidelines, "accessible Web content" and "accessible authoring tool" mean that the content and tool can be used by people regardless of disability.

To understand the accessibility issues relevant to authoring tool design, consider that many authors may be creating content in contexts very different from your own:

They may not be able to see, hear, move, or may not be able to process some types of information easily or at all;
They may have difficulty reading or comprehending text;
They may not have or be able to use a keyboard or mouse;
They may have a text-only display, or a small screen.

Accessible design will benefit people in these different authoring scenarios and also many people who do not have a physical disability but who have similar needs. For example, someone may be working in a noisy environment and thus require an alternative representation of audio information. Similarly, someone may be working in an eyes-busy environment and thus require an audio equivalent to information they cannot view. Users of small mobile devices (with small screens, no keyboard, and no mouse) have similar functional needs as some users with disabilities.

Accessibility Awareness

An "accessibility-aware" application is one that has been designed to account for authors' differing needs, abilities, and technologies. In the case of authoring tools, this means that (1) care has been taken to ensure that the content produced by user-authors is accessible and (2) that the user interface has been designed to be usable with a variety of display and control technologies.

Accessibility Information

"Accessibility information" is content, including information and markup, that is used to improve the accessibility of a document. Accessibility information includes, but is not limited to, equivalent alternative information.

Accessibility Problem (Also: Inaccessible Markup)

Inaccessible Web content or authoring tools cannot be used by some people with disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] describes how to create accessible Web content.

Accessible Authoring Practice

"Accessible authoring practices" improve the accessibility of Web content. Both authors and tools engage in accessible authoring practices. For example, authors write clearly, structure their content, and provide navigation aids. Tools automatically generate valid markup and assist authors in providing and managing appropriate equivalent alternatives.

Alert

An "alert" draws the author's attention to an event or situation. It may require a response from the author. An alert warns the author that there are problems that need to be addressed. Attracting the author's attention artfully can be challenging, since author perceptions of alerts, prompts, and warnings can influence opinions of the tool and even of accessible authoring.

An Unintrusive Alert is an alert such as an icon, underlining, or gentle sound that can be presented to the author without necessitating immediate action. For example, in some word processors misspelled text is highlighted without forcing the author to make immediate corrections. These alerts allow authors to continue editing with the knowledge that problems will be easy to identify at a later time. However, authors may become annoyed at the extra formatting or may choose to ignore the alerts altogether.

An Interruptive Alert is an informative message that interrupts the editing process for the author. For example, interruptive alerts are often presented when an author's action could cause a loss of data. Interruptive alerts allow problems to be brought to the author's attention immediately. However, authors may resent the constant delays and forced actions. Many people prefer to finish expressing an idea before returning to edit its format.

Alternative Information (Also: Equivalent Alternative)

Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user. Equivalent alternatives play an important role in accessible authoring practices since certain types of content may not be accessible to all users (e.g., video, images, audio, etc.). Authors are encouraged to provide text equivalents for non-text content since text may be rendered as synthesized speech for individuals who have visual or learning disabilities, as braille for individuals who are blind, or as graphical text for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability. For more information about equivalent alternatives, please refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

Text equivalents for still images can be short ("Site Map Link") or long (e.g., "Figure 4 shows that the population of bacteria doubled approximately every twenty hours over the first one hundred hours, increasing from about 1000 per milliliter to about 32,000 per milliliter."). Text equivalents for audio clips are called "text transcripts". Captions are essential text equivalents for movie audio. Another essential text equivalent for a movie is a "collated text transcript." An essential non-text equivalent for movies is "auditory description" of the key graphical elements of a presentation.

Attribute

This document uses the term "attribute" as used in SGML and XML ([[XML]]): Element types may be defined as having any number of attributes. Some attributes are integral to the accessibility of content (e.g., the "alt", "title", and "longdesc" attributes in HTML).

In the following example, the attributes of the beverage element type are "flavour", which has the value "lots", and "colour", which has the value "red":

<beverage flavour="lots" colour="red">my favourite</beverage>

Auditory Description

An "auditory description" provides information about actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes in a video. Auditory descriptions are commonly used by people who are blind or have low vision, although they may also be used as a low-bandwidth equivalent on the Web. An auditory description is either a pre-recorded human voice or a synthesized voice (recorded or automatically generated in real time). The auditory description must be synchronized with the auditory track of a video presentation, usually during natural pauses in the auditory track.

Authoring Tool

An "authoring tool" is any software that is used to produce content for publishing on the Web. Authoring tools include:

Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content (e.g., WYSIWYG HTML and XML editors);
Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web format (e.g., word processors or desktop publishing packages);
Tools that transform documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to transform desktop publishing formats to HTML);
Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is intended for use on the Web (e.g., video production and editing suites, SMIL authoring packages);
Tools for site management or site publication, including tools that automatically generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-fly conversion and Web site publishing tools;
Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).

Automated Markup Insertion Function

"Automated markup insertion functions" are the features of an authoring tool that allow the author to produce markup without directly typing it. This includes a wide range of tools from simple markup insertion aids (such as a bold button on a toolbar) to markup managers (such as table makers that include powerful tools such as "split cells" that can make multiple changes) to high level site building wizards that produce almost complete documents on the basis of a series of author preferences.

Captions

"Captions" are essential text equivalents for movie audio. Captions consist of a text transcript of the auditory track of the movie (or other video presentation) that is synchronized with the video and auditory tracks. Captions are generally rendered graphically and benefit people who can see but are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or cannot hear the audio.

Conversion Tool

A "conversion tool" is any application or application feature (e.g., "Save as HTML") that transforms convent in one format to another format (such as a markup language).

Check for

As used in [#Cnotify-on-schedule], "check for" can refer to three types of checking:

In some instances, an authoring tool will be able to check for accessibility problems automatically. For example, checking for validity ([#Censure-published-DTD]) or testing whether an image is the only content of a link.
In some cases, the tool will be able to "suspect" or "guess" that there is a problem, but will need confirmation from the author. For example, in making sure that a sensible reading order is preserved a tool can present a linearized version of a page to the author.
In some cases, a tool must rely mostly on the author, and can only ask the author to check. For example, the tool may prompt the author to verify that equivalent alternatives for multimedia are appropriate. This is the minimal standard to be satisfied. Subtle, rather than extensive, prompting is more likely to be effective in encouraging the author to verify accessibility where it cannot be done automatically.

Current User Selection

When several views co-exist, each may have a selection, but only one is active, called the "current user selection." User selections may be rendered specially (e.g., graphically highlighted).

Description Link (D-link)

A "description link", or D-Link, is an author-supplied link to additional information about a piece of content that might otherwise be difficult to access (image, applet, video, etc.).

Document

A "document" is a series of elements that are defined by a markup language (e.g., HTML 4 or an XML application).

Editing an element

"Editing an element" involves making changes to one or more of an element's attributes or properties. This applies to all editing, including, but not limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, making changes to a property dialog or direct User Interface manipulation.

Editing View

An "editing view" is a view provided by the authoring tool that allows editing.

Element

An "element" is any identifiable object within a document, for example, a character, word, image, paragraph or spreadsheet cell. In [[HTML4]] and [[XML]], an element refers to a pair of tags and their content, or an "empty" tag - one that requires no closing tag or content.

Focus

The "focus" designates the active element (e.g., link, form control, element with associated scripts, etc.) in a view that will react when the user next interacts with the document.

Generation Tool

A "generation tool" is a program or script that produces automatic markup "on the fly" by following a template or set of rules. The generation may be performed on either the server or client side.

Image Editor

An image editor is a graphics program that provides a variety of options for altering images of different formats.

Inform

To "inform" is to make the author aware of an event or situation through alert, prompt, sound, flash, or other means.

Inserting an element

"Inserting an element" involves placing that element's markup within the markup of the file. This applies to all insertions, including, but not limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, choosing an automated insertion from a pull-down menu or tool bar button, "drag-and-drop" style insertions, or "paste" operations.

Markup Language

Authors encode information using a "markup language" such as HTML [[HTML4]], SVG [[SVG]], or MathML [[MATHML]].

Multimedia Authoring Tool

A "multimedia authoring tool" is software that facilitates integration of diverse media elements into an comprehensive presentation format. Multimedia includes video, audio, images, animations, simulations, and other interactive components.

Presentation Markup

"Presentation markup" is markup language that encodes information about the desired presentation or layout of the content. For example, Cascading Style Sheets ([[CSS1]], [[CSS2]]) can be used to control fonts, colors, aural rendering, and graphical positioning. Presentation markup should not be used in place of structural markup to convey structure. For example, authors should mark up lists in HTML with proper list markup and style them with CSS (e.g., to control spacing, bullets, numbering, etc.). Authors should not use other CSS or HTML incorrectly to lay out content graphically so that it resembles a list.

Prompt

A "prompt" is a request for author input, either information or a decision. A prompt requires author response. For example, a text equivalent entry field prominently displayed in an image insertion dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts can be used to encourage authors to provide information needed to make content accessible (such as alternative text equivalents).

Property

A "property" is a piece of information about an element, for example structural information (e.g., it is item number 7 in a list, or plain text) or presentation information (e.g., that it is marked as bold, its font size is 14). In XML and HTML, properties of an element include the type of the element (e.g., IMG or DL), the values of its attributes, and information associated by means of a style sheet. In a database, properties of a particular element may include values of the entry, and acceptable data types for that entry.

Publishing Tool

A "publishing tool" is software that allows content to be uploaded in an integrated fashion. Sometimes these tools makes changes such as local hyper-reference modifications. Although these tools sometimes stand alone, they may also be integrated into site management tools.

Rendered Content

The "rendered content" of an element is that which the element actually causes to be rendered by the user agent. This may differ from the element's structural content. For example, some elements cause external data to be rendered (e.g., the IMG element in [[HTML4]]), and in some cases, browsers may render the value of an attribute (e.g., "alt", "title") in place of the element's content.

Rendered View, Preview

A "rendered view" simulates for the author how a user will interact with the content being edited once published.

Selection

A "selection" is a set of elements identified for a particular operation. The user selection identifies a set of elements for certain types of user interaction (e.g., cut, copy, and paste operations). The user selection may be established by the user (e.g., by a pointing device or the keyboard) or via an accessibility Application Programmatic Interface (API). A view may have several selections, but only one user selection.

Site Management Tool

A "site management tool" provides an overview of an entire Web site indicating hierarchical structure. It will facilitate management through functions that may include automatic index creation, automatic link updating, and broken link checking.

Structural Markup

"Structural markup" is markup language that encodes information about the structural role of elements of the content. For example, headings, sections, members of a list, and components of a complex diagram can be identified using structural markup. Structural markup should not be used incorrectly to control presentation or layout. For example, authors should not use the BLOCKQUOTE element in HTML [[HTML4]] to achieve an indentation visual layout effect. Structural markup should be used correctly to communicate the roles of the elements of the content and presentation markup should be used separately to control the presentation and layout.

Transcript

A "transcript" is a text representation of sounds in an audio clip or an auditory track of a multimedia presentation. A "collated text transcript" for a video combines (collates) caption text with text descriptions of video information (descriptions of the actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes of the visual track). Collated text transcripts are essential for individuals who are deaf-blind and rely on braille for access to movies and other content.

Transformation

A "transformation" is a process that changes a document or object into another, equivalent, object according to a discrete set of rules. This includes conversion tools, software that allows the author to change the DTD defined for the original document to another DTD, and the ability to change the markup of lists and convert them into tables.

User Agent

A "user agent" is software that retrieves and renders Web content. User agents include browsers, plug-ins for a particular media type, and some assistive technologies.

User-Configurable Schedule

A "user-configurable schedule" allows the user to determine the type of prompts and alerts that are used, including when they are presented. For example, a user may wish to include multiple images without being prompted for alternative information, and then provide the alternative information in a batch process, or may wish to be reminded each time they add an image. If the prompting is done on a user-configurable schedule they will be able to make that decision themselves. This technique allows a tool to suit the needs a wide range of authors.

Video Editor

A "video editor" is software for manipulating video images. Video editing includes cutting segments (trimming), re-sequencing clips, and adding transitions and other special effects.

View

Authoring tools may render the same content in a variety of ways; each rendering is called a "view." Some authoring tools will have several different types of view, and some allow views of several documents at once. For instance, one view may show raw markup, a second may show a structured tree, a third may show markup with rendered objects while a final view shows an example of how the document may appear if it were to be rendered by a particular browser. A typical way to distinguish views in a graphic environment is to place each in a separate window.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the following people who have contributed through review and comment: Jim Allan, Denis Anson, Kitch Barnicle, Kynn Bartlett, Harvey Bingham, Judy Brewer, Carl Brown, Dick Brown, Wendy Chisholm, Aaron Cohen, Rob Cumming, Daniel Dardailler, Mark Day, BK Delong, Martin Dürst, Kelly Ford, Jamie Fox, Edna French, Sylvain Galineau, Al Gilman, Jon Gunderson, Eric Hansen, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Brian Kelly, Marja-Riitta Koivunen, Sho Kuwamoto, Jaap van Lelieveld, Susan Lesch, William Loughborough, Greg Lowney, Karen McCall, Thierry Michel, Charles Oppermann, Dave Pawson, Dave Poehlman, Loretta Reid, Bruce Roberts, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Bridie Saccocio, Janina Sajka, John Slatin, Jim Thatcher, Irène Vatton, Gregg Vanderheiden, Pawan Vora, Jason White, and Lauren Wood.

References

For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports.

ACCESS-AWARE: "The Three-tions of Accessibility-Aware HTML Authoring Tools," J. Richards.
AMAYA: Amaya, developed at W3C, is both an authoring tool and browser with a WYSIWYG-style user interface. Amaya serves as a testbed for W3C specifications. Source code, binaries, and further information are available at http://www.w3.org/Amaya/. The techniques in this document are based on Amaya version 2.4.
AMAYA-SAMPLE: "_SAMPLE_AMAYA_TITLE_" Describes how Amaya, W3C's WYSIWYG browser/authoring tool, satisfies the guidelines.
AMAYA-HELP-IMG: "Images and Client-side Image Maps," Amaya's Help page for images and image maps.
APPLE-HI: "Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines," Apple Computer Inc.
APROMPT: The A-prompt tool allows authors to check many accessibility features in HTML pages, and incorporates an "Alternative Information Management Mechanism" (AIMM)) to manage equivalent alternative information for known resources. The tool is built in such a way that the functions can be incorporated into an authoring tool. A-prompt tool is a freely available example tool developed by the Adaptive Technology Resource Center at the University of Toronto, and the TRACE center at the University of Wisconsin. The source code for the tool is also available at http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca.
AUTO-TOOL: "Techniques For Evaluation And Implementation Of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines," C. Ridpath.
CONFORMANCE: "Conformance icons for ATAG 1.0." Information about ATAG 1.0 conformance icons is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ATAG10-Conformance.
CSS1: "CSS, level 1 Recommendation," B. Bos and H. Wium Lie, eds., 17 December 1996, revised 11 January 1999. This CSS1 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111. The latest version of CSS1 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1. Note: CSS1 has been superseded by CSS2. Tools should implement the CSS2 cascade.
CSS2: "CSS, level 2 Recommendation," B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, C. Lilley, and I. Jacobs, eds., 12 May 1998. This CSS2 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512. The latest version of CSS2 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2.
CSS2-ACCESS: "Accessibility Features of CSS," I. Jacobs and J. Brewer, eds., 4 August 1999. This W3C Note is http://www.w3.org/1999/08/NOTE-CSS-access-19990804. The latest version of Accessibility Features of CSS is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access.
ED-DEPT: "Requirements for Accessible Software Design," US Department of Education, version 1.1 March 6, 1997.
EITAAC: "EITACC Desktop Software standards," Electronic Information Technology Access Advisory (EITACC) Committee.
HTML4: "HTML 4.01 Recommendation," D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, eds., 24 December 1999. This HTML 4.01 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224. The latest version of HTML 4 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/html4.
HTML4-ACCESS: "WAI Resources: HTML 4.0 Accessibility Improvements," I. Jacobs, J. Brewer, and D. Dardailler, eds. This document describes accessibility features in HTML 4.0.
HTML-XML-VALIDATOR: The W3C HTML Validation Service validates HTML and XHTML markup.
IBM-ACCESS: "Software Accessibility," IBM Special Needs Systems.
ICCCM: "The Inter-Client communication conventions manual." A protocol for communication between clients in the X Window system.
ICE-RAP: "An ICE Rendezvous Mechanism for X Window System Clients," W. Walker. A description of how to use the ICE and RAP protocols for X Window clients.
JAVA-ACCESS: "IBM Guidelines for Writing Accessible Applications Using 100% Pure Java," R. Schwerdtfeger, IBM Special Needs Systems.
JAVA-CHECKLIST: "Java Accessibility Guidelines and Checklist," IBM Special Needs Systems.
JAVA-TUT: "The Java Tutorial. Trail: Creating a GUI with JFC/Swing." An online tutorial that describes how to use the Swing Java Foundation Class to build an accessible User Interface.
MATHML: "Mathematical Markup Language," P. Ion and R. Miner, eds., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July 1999. This MathML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/1999/07/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.
MSAA: "Information for Developers About Microsoft Active Accessibility," Microsoft Corporation.
MS-ENABLE: "Accessibility for Applications Designers," Microsoft Corporation.
MS-SOFTWARE: "The Microsoft Windows Guidelines for Accessible Software Design." Warning! This is a "self-extracting archive", an application that will probably only run on MS-Windows systems.
NOTES-ACCESS: "Lotus Notes Accessibility Guidelines," IBM Special Needs Systems.
SEARCHABLE: "A Comparison of Schemas for Dublin Core-based Video Metadata Representation," J Hunter.
SMIL-ACCESS: "Accessibility Features of SMIL," M.-R. Koivunen and I. Jacobs, eds. This W3C Note is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-SMIL-access-19990921. The latest version of Accessibility Features of SMIL is available at available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL-access.
SUN-DESIGN: "Designing for Accessibility," Eric Bergman and Earl Johnson. This paper discusses specific disabilities including those related to hearing, vision, and cognitive function.
SUN-HCI: "Towards Accessible Human-Computer Interaction," Eric Bergman, Earl Johnson, Sun Microsytems 1995. A substantial paper, with a valuable print bibliography.
SVG: "Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification (Working Draft)," J. Ferraiolo, ed. The latest version of the SVG specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG.
RUBY: "Ruby Annotation," M. Sawicki, M. Suignard, M. Ishikawa, and M. Dürst, eds. The 17 December 1999 Working Draft is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-ruby-19991217. The latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby.
SVG-ACCESS: "Accessibility of Scalable Vector Graphics (Working Draft)," C. McCathieNevile, M.-R. Koivunen, eds. The latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/1999/09/SVG-access.
TRACE-REF: "Application Software Design Guidelines," compiled by G. Vanderheiden. A thorough reference work.
ATAG10: "_THE_GL_TITLE_," J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds. The latest version is available at _THE_LATEST_VERSION_.
ATAG10-LC: "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (Working Draft), 3 September 1999 Last Call draft," J. Treviranus, J. Richards, I. Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile, eds. The Last Call draft of 3 September is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990903.
ATAG10-TECHS: "_THE_TECH_TITLE_," J. Treviranus, J. Richards, I. Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile eds. The latest version is available at _THE_LATEST_TECH_VERSION_.
ATAG10-EVAL: "Techniques for Evaluating Authoring Tool Accessibility," C. McCathieNevile ed. The latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG-EVAL/.
ATAG10-CHECKLIST: An appendix to this document lists all of the checkpoints, sorted by priority. The checklist is available in either tabular form (at _THIS_TABLE_CHKLIST_VERSION_) or list form (at _THIS_CHKLIST_VERSION_).
RDFPIC: "Describing and retrieving photos using RDF and HTTP" 3 April 2000, Yves Lafon, Bert Bos. This W3C Note describes a method for adding metadata information to images in JPEG format. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/photo-rdf/
RDF10: "Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification," O. Lassila, R. Swick, eds. The 22 February 1999 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. The latest version of RDF 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax.
WAI-ER: The Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group tracks and develops tools that can help repair accessibility errors.
UAAG10: "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines," J. Gunderson and I. Jacobs, eds. The latest version of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/UAAG10.
UAAG10-TECHS: "Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Gunderson, and I. Jacobs, eds. The latest version of Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/.
WCAG10: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds., 5 May 1999. This Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505. The latest version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/.
WCAG10-TECHS: "Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds. The latest version of Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/.
WCAG-PRIORITY: Priorities defined by [WCAG10].
WHAT-IS: "What is Accessible Software," James W. Thatcher, Ph.D., IBM, 1997. This paper gives a short example-based introduction to the difference between software that is accessible, and software that can be used by some assistive technologies.
XHTML10: "XHTML^(TM) 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Working Draft)," S. Pemberton et al. The latest version of XHTML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1.
XML: "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0," T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, eds., 10 February 1998. This XML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210. The latest version of the XML specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.
XMLGL: "XML Accessibility Guidelines (Draft Note)," D. Dardailler, ed. Draft notes for producing accessible XML document types. The latest version of the XML Accessibility Guidelines is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/xmlgl.
XML-NAMESPACE: "Namespaces in XML," T. Bray, D. Hollander, A. Layman eds. The latest version of the XML Namespaces Specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names.
SKETCH: The Sketch open source image editor home page.

Resources

Note:W3C does not guarantee the stability of any of the following references outside of its control. These references are included for convenience. References to products are not endorsements of those products.

Abstract

Status of this document

Table of Contents

Introduction

How the GuidelinesTechniques are organized

Checkpoint Priorities

Conformance to these Guidelines

Conformance levels

Well-formed conformance claims

Validity of a claim

Conformance Icons

Guidelines

access-supportSupport accessible authoring practices.

Checkpoints for guideline 1:

[+Glanguage-support]Generate standard markup.

Checkpoints:

[+Gprewritten-descs]Support the creation of accessible content.

Checkpoints:

Further techniques for this guideline are given in the appendix Techniques for User Prompting

[+Gidentify-markup]Provide ways of checking and correcting inaccessible content.

Checkpoints:

Further techniques for this guideline are given in the appendix Techniques for User Prompting

[+Gintegrate-naturally]Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel".

Checkpoints:

[+Gprovide-help]Promote accessibility in help and documentation.

Checkpoints:

[+Gmake-accessible]Ensure that the authoring tool is accessible to authors with disabilities.

Checkpoints:

Following Standards

Configurability

Input Device Independence

Icons, Graphics, Sounds

Layout

User Focus

Documentation

Techniques for User Prompting

What does prompting mean?

User configurable prompting schedule

Example:

Types of Prompting

Prompts

Field Priority:

Highlighting:

Related Prompts:

Sequential Prompts:

Alerts:

Intrusive Alerts

Unintrusive Alerts

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

Acknowledgments

References

Resources

Operating system and programming guidelines

Authoring tools and other services

Accessibility resources