Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
W3C Recommendation 3 February 2000
- This version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203
- (plain text,
HTML gzip tar archive, HTML zip archive,
PostScript,
PDF)
- Latest version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10
- Previous version:
- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-WAI-AUTOOLS-19991026
- Editors:
- Jutta Treviranus -
ATRC, University of Toronto
- Charles McCathieNevile - W3C
- Ian Jacobs - W3C
- Jan Richards - University of Toronto
Copyright
©2000 W3C® (MIT,
INRIA, Keio), All Rights
Reserved. W3C liability,
trademark, document
use and software
licensing rules apply.
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 is part of a series of accessibility documents published by
the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
(WAI).
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 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.
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 http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG-TRANSLATIONS.
The list of known errors in this document is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG-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.
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.
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 "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [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.
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.
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]).
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.
A well-formed claim must include the following information:
- The guidelines title/version: "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0";
- The URI of the guidelines: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203;
- 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
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203, level Double-A. Details of this
claim are provided at <a href="http://somewhere.com/details">
http://somewhere.com/details</a>.</p>
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.
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.
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]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.1
- 1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all
accessibility information
during authoring,
transformations, and
conversions. [Priority 1]
- 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]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.3
- 1.4 Ensure that templates provided
by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.4
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:
-
2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are available and appropriate
for a task. [Priority 2]
- W3C specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that they
do not compromise accessibility, and where possible, they enhance it.
- Techniques for checkpoint
2.1
- 2.2 Ensure that the tool automatically
generates valid markup. [Priority 1]
- This is necessary for user agents to
be able to render Web content in a manner appropriate to a particular user's
needs.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 2.2
- 2.3 If markup produced by the tool does
not conform to W3C specifications,
inform the author. [Priority 3]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 2.3
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]
- Note: Some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0
[WCAG10] may not apply.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 3.1
- 3.2 Help the author create structured
content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]
- Note: Some checkpoints in Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.2
- 3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content
conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10].
[Relative Priority]
- For example, include captions, an
auditory description, and a collated text transcript with prepackaged movies. Refer also to checkpoint
3.4.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 3.3
-
3.4 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.
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
checkpoint 3.3 and
checkpoint 3.5.
Note: Human-authored equivalent alternatives may be
available for an object (for example, through checkpoint 3.5 and/or checkpoint 3.3). It is
appropriate for the tool to offer these to the author as defaults.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 3.4
- 3.5 Provide functionality for managing,
editing, and reusing alternative
equivalents for multimedia objects.
[Priority 3]
- Note: These alternative equivalents may be packaged with
the tool, written by the author, retrieved from the Web, etc.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 3.5
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]
- 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.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 4.1
- 4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility
problems. [Relative Priority]
- At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the
accessibility checking required by checkpoint 4.1
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.2
-
4.3 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool.
[Priority 2]
- Note: The author may have included or
imported markup that enhances accessibility but is not recognized by the
tool.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 4.3
- 4.4 Provide the author with a summary of
the document's accessibility status.
[Priority 3]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 4.4
- 4.5 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. [Priority 3]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 4.5
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:
- 5.1 Ensure that functionality related to
accessible authoring
practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the
tool. [Priority 2]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 5.1
-
5.2 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]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 5.2
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:
- 6.1 Document all features that promote the
production of accessible content.
[Priority 1]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 6.1
- 6.2 Ensure that creating accessible
content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including
examples. [Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.2
- 6.3 In a dedicated section,
document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessible
content. [Priority 3]
-
Techniques for checkpoint 6.3
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 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.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.1
- 7.2 Allow the author to change the
presentation within editing views
without affecting the document markup.
[Priority 1]
- This allows the author to edit the document according to personal
requirements, without changing the way the document is rendered when
published.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 7.2
-
7.3 Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible
fashion. [Priority 1]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 7.3
- 7.4 Ensure that the editing view allows navigation via the
structure of the document in an accessible fashion.
[Priority 1]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 7.4
-
7.5 Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessible
fashion. [Priority 2]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 7.5
-
7.6 Allow the author to search within editing views.
[Priority 2]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 7.6
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
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.
For the latest version of any
W3C specification please consult the list of W3C
Technical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR.
- [ATAG10-CHECKLIST]
- An appendix to this document lists all of the checkpoints, sorted by
priority. The checklist is available in either tabular
form (at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/atag10-chktable) or list form (at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/atag10-chklist).
- [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.