Draft Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines

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 the third Working Group internal draft of a document to supersede the W3C Recommendation Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. It is made available for review by the Working group, as an initial proposal for a new version of Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines. This draft follows the working group face to face meeting held in Amsterdam 18-19 June 2001.

This draft still refers to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. It is expected (but not guaranteed) that if Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 becomes a Recommendation, this document will refer to that, and become Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0.

The working group expects this version to be backwards-compatible with the existing Recommendation, or at least to have only minor changes in requirements. It is expected to be easier to use. It results from experience with the Version 1.0 Recommendation, and working group review of previous versions of this draft.

As an initial internal draft, this document still refers to the Techniques Note for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. As part of development of this draft, it is expected that the group will draft a matching version of that Note.

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 will be the only normative version. Information about translations of this document is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG-TRANSLATIONS.

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 [WOMBAT-CHECKLIST] lists all checkpoints for convenient reference.

1. 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 "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [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.

1.2 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 (4.1) or ask the author for (3.1) 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 (4.1) or ask the author for (3.2) 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.

1.3 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).

The conformance icons provided for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 are not valid for expressing conformance to this draft

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: "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines "wombat" Working Group Internal Draft, 30 May 2001 ";
The URI of the guidelines: "http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/wombat/010530";
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.

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 a claim provided other than as metadata 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 "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines "wombat" Working Group Internal Draft, 22 June 2001", available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/wombat/010622, level Double-A. Details of this claim are provided at <a href="http://example.com/details"> http://example.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

There are currently no conformance icons available for this draft specification. If it becomes a recommendation it is expected that there will be conformance icons like those available for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.

2. Guidelines

Guideline 1. Support 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:

1.1 Ensure that the author can produce accessible content in the markup language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1]

Rationale: this is a basic requirement to allow the author to create accessible content within the tool.

At minimum (required basic functionality): the author can add or edit any elements or element properties of the language that can enhance accessibility.

More advanced (optional suggested functionality): provide an integrated interface to properties affecting accessibility (see also )

1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all accessibility information during transformations, and conversions. [Priority 1]

At minimum (required basic functionality): ensure that all information provided in the document or fragment to be converted is provided in the result. Where this is not reversible, inform the author.

More advanced implementations will use markup, or some other mechanism to record the transformation and ensure reversibility.

Note this checkpoint covers importing from a format the tool does not use.

See also Techniques for checkpoint 1.2

1.3 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]

At minimum (required basic functionality): Any decisions made for the author by the tool should optimize the accessibility of the content (as per WCAG). This applies to the choice of markup type, file type, and markup practices. The author may be able to override the choices proposed or made by the tool.

Techniques for checkpoint 1.3

1.4 Ensure that all pre-authored content for the tool conforms to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]

For example, templates must include accessible markup and content. Images and multimedia libraries must include accessible alternatives, such as alt text and long descriptions for images and captions, auditory descriptions and collated text transcriptions for movies. Applets and scripts must be accessible and include functional alternatives.

At minimum templates, clip art, scripts, applets, example pages, etc supplied with the tool must conform to WCAG 1 (to the conformance level claimed by the tool)

See also Techniques for checkpoint 1.4

1.5 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool. [Priority 2]

At minimum (required basic functionality): prompt the author to confirm before removing or changing unrecognised markup. It is acceptable for a tool to reject a document it cannot process.

More advanced implementations may integrate this with the checking and repair functions of guideline 4, allowing the author finer-grained control.

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

Techniques for checkpoint 1.5

Guideline 3. Guide the author to produce 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:

3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). [Relative Priority]

At minimum (required basic functionality): when any applicable non-text objects (see WCAG) are inserted, a means for adding the alternative information must be provided.

Rationale:This checkpoint requires authoring tools to ask for (and support the creation of) alternate text, captions, auditory descriptions, collated text transcripts for video, etc. at times appropriate to the author-tool interaction.

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

More advanced implementations might provide special authoring facilities that automate some of the process of generating alternative information (ex. voice recognition to produce collated text transcripts).

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 3.1

3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]

At minimum: tool should either label or classify attributes as being structural or presentational. where a markup language supports presentation by styling, use styling by default; if author chooses a deprecated element or attribute, prompt him/her to use its replacement in the ML defined for the page/section/fragment, etc. @@issue: we need to work on this one

Note: Some checkpoints in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply. @@issue: identify which ones

Techniques for checkpoint 3.2

3.3 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]

Rationale: Testing for appropriate text alternatives is easily broken by auto-generated alternatives @@issue: write this in plain english

At minimum basic required functionality: The function of an object may be "known with certainty" when the object is placed by the tool for a specific purpose or the user has defined a purpose. A default entry should only be offered if it has been explicitly associated with the object, as an alternative equivalent.

Examples (@@issue: remove these to techniques): if a tool automatically generates a navigation bar for all pages on a site, it is acceptable to propagate the text equivalent(s) for images that link to searching, the table of contents, etc. When a new object is inserted and the function is unknown, the tool should prompt the author to enter an appropriate equivalent alternative without providing a default entry, such as the file name.

3.4 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3]

Rationale: implement management systems for alternative equivalents in order to simplify their use.

At minimum: store associations between the multimedia objects and alternatives created by the author, allowing the author to edit the alternatives and reuse them easily.

More advanced implementations might collect alternatives from a variety of sources (the author, prepackaged, the Web) and provide powerful tools for managing the associations, including search functions and object similarity estimates.

Guideline 4. 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 guideline 5). 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:

4.1 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Relative Priority]

At minimum (required basic functionality): this utility must provide at least one, automated or manual, check for each WCAG checkpoint (of relevant priority). When this utility runs it must always check those questions pertaining to "In General" WCAG checkpoints, but only those "conditional" WCAG checkpoints that have their conditions fulfilled by the document.

Rationale: provide the author with a utility that helps check documents for accessibility problems.

More advanced implementation: the checks should be automated to the greatest extent possible.

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 4.1

4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. [Relative Priority]

Rationale: once accessibility problems have been found, authoring tools help the author to correct them properly.

At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the accessibility checking required by checkpoint 4.1.

Advanced implementations: provide the author with automated or semi-automated correction tools, in addition to guidelines and examples.

4.3 Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status. [Priority 3]

Rationale: encourage authoring tools to notify authors of accessibility problems in a coherent way.

At minimum (required basic functionality): provide a list of the problems by type.

Advanced implementations might integrate the summary with the tool's repair functionality to increase the flexibility with which problems can be corrected (see checkpoint 4.2).

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 4.3

Guideline 5. Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel".

Guideline 6. 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: @@issue: these are under discussion still

6.1 Document all features that promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 1]

Rationale: help authors learn how to use the accessibility related features of the tool.

At minimum (required basic functionality): include documentation explaining the purpose and use each of these features.

More advanced implementations might provide context-senstive links to this content from within the authoring tool user interface.

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 6.1

6.2 Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including examples. [Priority 2]

This checkpoint promotes the production of accessible content by implicitly demonstrating to the author that all content, regardless of purpose, should comply with the WCAG guidelines [@@Issue - to what level? @@Issue - distinguish this from a gl 5 checkpoint].

At minimum (required basic functionality): all documented examples of the authoring tool interface (i.e. dialog boxes, code views, etc.) should include any relevant accessible authoring practices.

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 6.2

6.3 Document the process of using the tool to produce accessible content. [Priority 3]

Rationale: explicitly informing the author of the steps they need to take (using the the features of the tool documented for Checkpoint 6.1 or otherwise) to produce accessible content.

At minimum (required basic functionality): provide an overview of the tags and attributes that are required to enhance accessibility. The documentation for each feature might explain which disability groups and user agents benefit from its use.

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 6.3

Guideline 7. 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:

7.1 Ensure that the authoring interface follows all operating environment conventions that benefit accessibility (Applies at three priority levels: [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).

This checkpoint requires all aspects of the authoring interface to be accessible to the author. This wide scope means that the checkpoint applies to the implementation of all the other checkpoints in this guidelines document. The techniques for this checkpoint include references to checklists and guidelines for a number of platforms and to general guidelines for accessible applications. In many cases several sets of standards will be applicable. @@issue - there is no minimum here

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 7.1

7.2 Ensure that the authoring interface enables accessible editing of all element and object properties. [Priority 1]

Note This checkpoint is a special case of checkpoint 7.1 that is especially important to authoring tools.

At minimum (required basic functionality): provide at least one accessible way to edit every element and object property supported by the tool.

More advanced implementations might ensure that all of the ways in which the tool allows element and object properties to be edited should be accessible.

3. 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 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.

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].

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).

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).

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 checkpoint 4.1, "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 (checkpoint 2.2) 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.

Document

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

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.

Inform

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

Markup Language

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

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

In this document prompt does not refer to the narrow software sense of a "prompt," rather it is used as a verb meaning to urge, suggest and encourage. The form and timing that this prompting takes can be user configurable. "Prompting" does not depend upon the author to seek out the support but is initiated by the tool. "Prompting" is more than checking, correcting, and providing help and documentation as encompassed in guidelines 4, 5, 6. The goal of prompting the author is to encourage, urge and support the author in creating meaningful equivalent text without causing frustration that may cause the author to turn off access options. Prompting should be implemented in such a way that it causes a positive disposition and awareness on the part of the author toward accessible authoring practices.

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.

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.

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.

5. References

For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR.

[WOMBAT-CHECKLIST]: An appendix to this document lists all of the checkpoints, sorted by priority. The checklist is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/wombat/010622-checklist).
[ATAG10-TECHS]: "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Treviranus, J. Richards, I. Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile eds. The latest version is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS.
[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.
[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.
[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/TR/1998/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.
[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.
[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.
[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/.
[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.

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines "Wombat"

Working Group Internal Draft, 22 June 2001

Abstract

Status of this document

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 How the Guidelines are organized

1.2 Checkpoint Priorities

1.3 Conformance to these Guidelines

Conformance levels

Well-formed conformance claims

Validity of a claim

Conformance Icons

2. Guidelines

Guideline 1. Support accessible authoring practices.

Checkpoints:

Guideline 2. Generate standard markup.

Checkpoints:

Guideline 3. Guide the author to produce accessible content.

Checkpoints:

Guideline 4. Provide ways of checking and correcting inaccessible content.

Checkpoints:

Guideline 5. Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel".

Checkpoints:

Guideline 6. Promote accessibility in help and documentation.

Checkpoints: @@issue: these are under discussion still

Guideline 7. Ensure that the authoring tool is accessible to authors with disabilities.

Checkpoints:

3. Glossary of Terms and Definitions

4. Acknowledgments

5. References