[Contents] [Techniques]
Copyright © 2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
[Contents] [Guidelines]
Copyright ©2007 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
Editing Styles:
This specification provides guidelines for designing Web content authoring tools that are more accessible for people with disabilities. An authoring tool that conforms to these guidelines will promote accessibility by providing an accessible user interface to authors with disabilities as well as enabling, supporting, and promoting the production of accessible Web content by all authors.
This document provides non-normative information to authoring tool developers who wish to satisfy the guidelines in the "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" [ATAG20]. 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 ATAG 2.0 guideline.
The "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (ATAG 2.0) is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
This document is the internal working draft used by the ATAG WG and is updated continuously and without notice. This document has no formal standing within W3C. Please consult the group's home page and the W3C technical reports index for information about the latest publications by this group.
The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) intends to publish ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Recommendation. Until that time Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (ATAG 1.0) [ATAG10] is the stable, referenceable version. This Working Draft does not supersede ATAG 1.0.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This is a W3C Public Working Draft. This draft integrates changes made as a result of comments received on the 23 April 2007 Public Working Draft and it has also been updated to reflect changes made to ATAG 2.0 (5 March 2008 Public Working Draft).
The Working Group seeks feedback on the following points for this draft:
Comments on this working draft are due on or before 21 April 2008. Comments on the draft should be sent to public-atag2-comments@w3.org (Public Archive).
The Working Group (AUWG) intends to publish the Implementation Techniques for ATAG 2.0 as a W3C Note. A Techniques document was also published for ATAG 1.0 [ATAG10], entitled "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG10-TECHS]. The Working Group expects to update this document in response to queries raised by implementers of the Guidelines, for example to cover new technologies. Suggestions for additional techniques are welcome.
Comments on the draft are welcome at public-atag2-comments@w3.org (Public Archive).
This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the AUWG are discussed in the Working Group charter. The AUWG is part of the WAI Technical Activity.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
This section is informative, except where noted.
This is a Editor's Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version 2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting developers to make the authoring tools they develop more accessible to people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech difficulties, and others. However, even authoring tools that conform to ATAG 2.0 may not be able to address the needs of people with all types, degrees and combinations of disabilities.
In order to achieve accessibility, authoring tools must address the needs of two (potentially overlapping) user groups with disabilities:
The guidelines do not include standard usability recommendations except where they have a significantly greater impact on people with disabilities than on other people.
As ATAG 2.0 guides authors in complying to WCAG 2.0, similar to the constraints of WCAG 2.0, even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Creation of authoring tools that fully address the specialized needs of these communities for is encouraged, but is beyond the scope of this document.
These guidelines have been written to address the requirements of many different audiences, including, but not limited to:
When implementing ATAG 2.0, the Working Group suggests that developers should consider close integration of features that support accessible authoring with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. This type of integration has the potential to:
This is a Working Draft of the Implementation Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. While the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20] provides a generic description of the requirements for authoring tools that are accessible to people with disabilities, these implementation techniques provide an interpretation of the guidelines as they apply to real tools. This interpretation represents the best thinking of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) and as such is a good guide to achieve conformance to ATAG 2.0. The Working Group encourages developers to implement these techniques where appropriate. However, these techniques do not provide a final definition of ATAG 2.0 conformance and it may be possible to meet the guideline requirements without following these techniques and thus this document is informative. As new methods of conforming to the guidelines come to the attention of the Working Group, these techniques will be updated.
This section is normative.
This section is included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].
ATAG 2.0 defines an "authoring tool" as any application, part of an application, or collection of applications that authors interact with to create, modify or assemble Web content to be used by other people.
The definition applies to all or part of the following types of applications:
Authoring tools are just one aspect of accessibility. For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see:
ATAG 2.0 is divided into two parts, each reflecting a key aspect of accessible authoring tools. Part A includes principles and associated guidelines that are related to ensuring accessibility of the authoring tool user interface to authors with disabilities. Part B contains principles and guidelines related to ensuring support by authoring tools for the creation of accessible Web content by any author (not just those with disabilities) to end users with disabilities.
The guidelines and success criteria in Part A are organized around the following four principles, adapted from the four principles in WCAG 2.0:
There are three principles in Part B:
Note: While the requirements in Part B do not deal with the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface per se, it should be noted that any of the features (e.g., checker, tutorial) added to an authoring tool to meet the Part B success criteria must also meet the user interface accessibility requirements of Part A.
Under each guideline there are success criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when a specific authoring tool is tested against it. While all of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be testable and some test automation may be possible, human testing will usually be required. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, three levels of conformance are defined: A (lowest), AA, and AAA (highest).
Each of the success criteria has a link to the Techniques document that provides:
Note: Any success criteria that are judged not applicable to a particular authoring tool are treated as satisfied for conformance purposes, as long as a rationale is provided.
The techniques are informative (i.e., non-normative).
The list of techniques for each success criteria are not exhaustive. Rather, these techniques represent an illustrative sampling of approaches. There may be many other ways a tool might be designed and still meet the normative criteria contained in the success criteria.
Some techniques are labeled as "Sufficient". These techniques are judged by the Working Group to meet the success criteria to which they apply. Conditional wording may limit the applicability of any given sufficient technique to a particular type of content or authoring tool. Inclusion does not imply that the description will be verified or is verifiable. When multiple techniques must be implemented together to be sufficient, they are labeled "Sufficient in combination".
Some techniques are labeled as "Advisory". These techniques are included as additional information.
Note: Use of "mock" screenshots is for general illustrative purposes only. They do not imply endorsement of similar tools by the Working Group or suggests that these screenshots represent the best or only implementations.
Authoring tools may claim full conformance to ATAG 2.0 at one of three "full" conformance levels. The level achieved depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied. The full conformance levels are:
In addition, a "partial conformance" claim option is available in cases where an authoring tool has satisfied all of the success criteria at a specified level in one of the two Parts of the document (i.e., "Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible" and "Part B: Support the production of accessible content"). The partial conformance levels are:
Note: The Working Group remains committed to the guiding principle that: "Everyone should have the ability to create and access Web content". Therefore, it is recommended that partial conformance be claimed as a step towards full conformance.
ATAG 2.0 is intended to be used in conjunction with WCAG 2.0 or similar Web content accessibility guidance (e.g., WCAG 1.0, regulations that include WCAG 2.0, etc.).
The relationship is as follows:
Since the techniques and examples are intended to be as informative as possible, many of them are specific to certain approaches to presenting the content being edited . Where this is the case they have been marked with icons as follows:
The success criteria and applicability notes in this section are normative.
The guidelines and success criteria are included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].
Scope: The success criteria in Part A apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the developer. This includes functionalities that are independent of the content being edited, such as what is sometimes referred to as the authoring tool's "chrome" (e.g., menus, button bars, status bars, etc.) and also user preferences and documentation, etc. In addition, the developers' responsibility covers certain aspects of other functionalities that reflect the content being edited (e.g., ensuring that an image label present in the content is available programmatically). However, where an accessibility problem in the user interface is caused directly by an accessibility problem in the content it is reflecting (e.g., if an image in the content lacks a label), then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface.
Rationale: In addition to generally improving the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface, implementing Web-based functionality (e.g., editing views, documentation) using accessible Web content facilitates communication with assistive technologies via user agents.
A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (Level A): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG Level A. (Level A)
A.1.1.2 Web-Based Accessible (Level AA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG Level AA. (Level AA)
A.1.1.3 Web-Based Accessible (Level AAA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG Level AAA. (Level AAA)
This guideline also applies to parts of authoring tools that are Web-based (e.g., help systems).
Rationale: Following existing accessibility standards and/or platform conventions will facilitate access by all authors, including those using assistive technologies.
A.1.2.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level A): Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces comply with, and cite in the conformance claim, the "Level A" requirements of standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility. The "Level A" requirements are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG Level A success criteria. (Level A)
A.1.2.2 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level AA): Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces comply with, and cite in the conformance claim, the "Level AA" requirements of standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility. The "Level AA" requirements are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG Level AA success criteria. (Level AA)
A.1.2.3 Non-Web-Based Accessible (Level AAA): Non-Web-based authoring tool user interfaces comply with, and cite in the conformance claim, the "Level AAA" requirements of standards and/or platform conventions that benefit accessibility. The "Level AAA" requirements are those that are functionally equivalent to WCAG Level AAA success criteria. (Level AAA)
This guideline also applies to parts of authoring tools that are non-Web-based (e.g., client-side file uploaders).
Rationale: People who have difficulty perceiving non-text objects are often able to access text alternatives of the same information because there are a variety of ways to display text (e.g., magnification, enhancement, text-to-speech, Braille output)
A.2.1.1 Alternative equivalents in the content: Editing views that render non-text content (e.g., WYSIWYG) provide authors with access to any equivalent alternatives recognized by the authoring tool. (Level A)
This guideline does not apply to plain text editors as they do not render non-text content.
Rationale: Authors need to have access to and control over both the functional significance of presentation and also, in the context of authoring, the presentation that will be experienced by the end user. This is especially important for user interface components that do not implement an accessibility platform architecture or leverage existing implementations (e.g. custom user interface components built via JavaScript and CSS). Some authors require display settings that differ from the presentation that they intend to define for the published content (e.g., using a high contrast setting during editing content that is not intended to be high contrast).
A.2.2.1 Purpose of Added Presentation: If the authoring tool modifies the presentation of the content being edited, then the functional purpose for the modification is made available via the platform (e.g., if misspelled text is underlined, the fact that it is misspelled is made available). (Level A)
ins
and del
are used, since they have associated semantics. A.2.2.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG) renders any of the following text presentation properties and those properties are editable by any editing view (e.g., instruction level), then the properties are made available via the platform (Level A):
A.2.2.3 Access to Text Presentation (Enhanced): Any text presentation properties (text size, positioning, etc.) that are rendered in an editing view (e.g., WYSIWYG) and are editable by any editing view are available via the platform. (Level AAA)
Rationale: Some authors will require display settings that differ from the presentation that they intend to define for the published content (e.g., an author uses large fonts for themselves, while editing content that is not intended to have a large font in the final content).
A.2.3.1 Independence of Display: Editing views that usually have their display characteristics set by rendering the content being edited (e.g., WYSIWYG) allows the authors' visual and audio display settings to override these characteristics without affecting the content being edited (e.g., markup, style sheets, etc.). (Level A)
Rationale: Providing alternate keyboard accessibility provides access for people with limited mobility and people with visual disabilities, who cannot rely on hand-eye coordination for navigating the user interface.
A.3.1.1 Important Command Functions: If the authoring tool includes any of the following functions, authors can enable key-plus-modifier-key (or single-key) access to them (where allowed by the operating environment) (Level A):
A.3.1.2 Importing Content Keyboard Trap: The authoring tool prevents keyboard traps as follows (Level A):
Web-based authoring tools may rely on the keyboard navigation functions of the user agent listed in the conformance profile to satisfy some of these success criteria.
Rationale: People who have difficulty typing, operating the mouse, or processing information can be prevented from using systems with short time limits.
A.3.2.1 Data Saved: If the authoring tool ends an authoring session due to a time limit (e.g., authenticated session expires), then authors have the global option to ensure that the content being edited is saved. For Web-based authoring tools, this applies to any content that has already been submitted to the server by the user agent. (Level A)
A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: The author is warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g. "press the space bar"). (Level A)
A.3.2.3 Moving Targets: If the user interface includes any moving targets for authors' actions (e.g.,a selectable component of an animation), then authors can stop that movement. (Level A)
Several of the success criteria in this guideline only apply when there are time limits put on the author.
Rationale: Flashing can cause seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy.
A.3.3.1 Static View: If an editing view renders content (e.g., WYSIWYG) then the author has the global option of a static view in which time-based content appears in a fixed state. (Level A)
Rationale: People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools use the structure present in the content to simplify navigation and editing.
A.3.4.1 Edit by Structure: If an editing view displays a structured element set, then authors can, with a simple action, select any element in the set and perform editing functions (e.g., cut, copy, paste, presentation) on that element, its contents, and its sub-elements. (Level A)
<table>
element is selected and the "delete" operation is performed, the entire table is deleted including sub-elements ( <tr>
and <td>
) and any text content etc. within the table.<p>
) while not making any source changes to sub-elements (e.g., strong) (even though the content of sub-elements may be rendered differently) and "strip element tags" that deletes the markup of the top level element without affecting its sub-element.
<table>
element is selected and the "strip element tags" operation is performed, the operation targets the <table>
only, so this set of tags is removed, leaving sub-elements ( <tr>
and <td>
) and any text content etc. A.3.4.2 Navigate By Element Type: If an editing view displays a structured element set, authors can move the editing focus forward/backward to the next identical element. (Level AA)
A.3.4.3 Navigate By Headings: If an editing view displays a structured element set, authors can move the editing focus forward/backward to the heading, regardless of level. (Level AA)
A.3.4.4 Navigate Tree Structures: If an editing view displays a structured element set, authors can, with a simple action, move the editing focus from any element to other elements in the set with any of the following relationships (if they exist) (Level AA):
<tr>
element
has current focus and is therefore highlighted in the editing view. As
well, breadcrumbs in the status bar trace the path from the root element
to the current element, <html> <body> <table> <tr>
.
A pop-up menu from the selected element shows that keystrokes are available
to move the selection focus to the parent element, <table>
,
of the current element, to the child elements, in this case two <td>
elements
and to the next and previous element pointed to by the same parent element
(in this case to preceding and following <tr>
elements).
(Source: mockup by AUWG) Rationale: People who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to navigate to arbitrary points within editing views.
A.3.5.1 Text Search: A function is provided that allows text search of the content, which meets the following conditions (Level AA):
Web-based authoring tools may rely on the "find" function of the user agent listed in the conformance profile to help perform searches.
Rationale: Providing the ability to save and reload sets of keyboard and display preference settings benefits people using multi-user tools as well as people who have needs that differ over time (e.g., due to fatigue).
A.3.6.1 Save Settings: Preference settings are stored for any of the following that the authoring tool controls (i.e., not controlled by the platform) (Level AA):
A.3.6.2 Multiple Sets: Choosing between multiple sets of preferences (e.g., personal profiles, personal settings) are supported for any of the following that the authoring tool controls (i.e., not controlled by the platform) (Level AAA):
A.3.6.3 Options Wizard: Authors are provided with an accessibility option-setting "wizard" to configure options related to Part A. (Level AAA)
Rationale: Preview features are provided in many authoring tools because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how content will appear to end users in a user agent. Authors with disabilities need to be able to follow the same workflow.
Note: Previews are treated differently than editing views because authors, including those with disabilities, will not be well-served if preview features diverge too much from the actual functionality of available user agents. Therefore, preview features are exempted from necessarily having to meet all of the other requirements in Part A of this guidelines document, if they meet this guideline.
A.3.7.1 Return Mechanism: If a preview is provided, then it is possible to return from the preview using a simple action which is documented in the help system. (Level A)
A.3.7.2 Preview: If a preview is provided, then it meets at least one of the following (Level A):
Rationale: People who have difficulty making fine movements may be prone to making unintended actions.
A.4.1.1 Undo Content Changes: Authoring actions are either reversible by an "undo" function or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible. (Level A)
A.4.1.2 Undo Setting Changes: Actions that modify authoring tool settings are either reversible or include a warning to the author that the setting modification is irreversible. (Level A)
A.4.1.3 Redo: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent content "undo(s)" (i.e., a "redo" function). (Level AA)
A.4.1.4 Multiple Undos: Authors can reverse at least 5 consecutive reversible authoring actions. (Level AAA)
Rationale: While intuitive user interface design is valuable to many authors, some people may still not be able to understand or be able to operate the authoring tool user interface without proper documentation.
A.4.2.1 Document Accessibility Features: All features that are specifically required to meet Part A of these guidelines (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.) are documented. (Level A)
A.4.2.2 Accessibility Feature Tutorials: Tutorials are provided for some of the features that are specifically required to meet Part A of these guidelines. (Level AAA)
The accessibility of the documentation is covered by Guideline A.1.1 and A.1.2.
Rationale: Choosing technologies which support the possibility of accessible authoring is the first step in ensuring that the content produced is accessible.
B.1.1.1 Tool Choice of Technologies (Level A): Any Web content technologies that are automatically selected by the authoring tool can conform to WCAG Level A. (Level A)
B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies (Level A): If the authoring tool provides authors with Web content technology options, technology options that can conform to WCAG Level A are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options and the tool guides the author towards the most accessible technology for the task. (Level A)
B.1.1.3 Tool Choice of Technologies (Level AA): Any Web content technologies that is automatically selected by the authoring tool can conform to WCAG Level AA. (Level AA)
B.1.1.4 Author Choice of Technologies (Level AA): If the authoring tool provides authors with Web content technology options, technology options that can conform to WCAG Level AA are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options and the tool guides the author towards the most accessible technology for the task. (Level AA)
B.1.1.5 Tool Choice of Technologies (Level AAA): Any Web content technologies that is automatically selected by the authoring tool can conform to WCAG Level AAA. (Level AAA)
B.1.1.6 Author Choice of Technologies (Level AAA): If the authoring tool provides authors with Web content technology options, technology options that can conform to WCAG Level AAA are listed with at least as much prominence as any other options and the tool guides the author towards the most accessible technology for the task. (Level AAA)
Rationale: Accessibility information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility across transformations and conversions.
B.1.2.1 Target Preserves Accessibility Information : If the target technology of the transformation or conversion can preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the accessibility information is preserved and available for end users in the resulting content. (Level A)
B.1.2.x Target Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the target technology of the transformation or conversion cannot preserve *recognized* accessibility information that is required for that content to conform to WCAG Level A, then the authoring tool (Level A):
alt
attributes can be stored in desc
attributes.B.1.2.2 Accessibility Information Preservation (Enhanced): If the authoring tool performs transformations or conversions during an authoring session, then any accessibility information in the pre-transformation/conversion content that is required for content to conform to WCAG Level AA or AAA is preserved and available for end users in the resulting content. (Level AA)
B.1.2.3 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason, then at least one of the following is true (Level AA):
If an authoring tool performs transformations or conversions after an authoring session ends (e.g., a batch maintenance process) only option (a) is allowed for both B.1.2.1 and B.1.2.3.
Rationale: Authoring tools that automatically generate content that is not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.
See Also: If accessibility information is required from authors during the automatic generation process, see Guideline B.2.1. If templates or other pre-authored content are involved, see Guideline B.2.5.
B.1.3.1 Automatic Accessible (Level A): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level A prior to publishing.
B.1.3.2 Automatic Accessible (Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level AA prior to publishing. (Level AA)
B.1.3.3 Automatic Accessible (Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content, then that content meets WCAG Level AAA prior to publishing. (Level AAA)
Principle B.2 applies to authoring tool processes that interact with human authors, and the authoring choices that author is making or the authoring choices under the control of the authoring tool. Authoring choices include choice of style sheets, templates, scripts, etc
Rationale: By guiding authors from the outset towards the creation and maintenance of accessible content, accessibility problems are mitigated and less repair and retrofit effort is required.
See also: For more information on how to prompt, see ATAG 2.0 Techniques - Appendix A: Prompting for Different Types of Accessibility Information. Repair features (see Guidelin B.2.3) are also an important aspect of author guidance.
Implementation Notes: Prompting in the ATAG 2.0 context is not to be interpreted as necessarily implying intrusive prompts, such as pop-up dialog boxes. Instead, ATAG 2.0 uses prompt in a wider sense, to mean any tool initiated process of eliciting author input that is triggered by author actions (e.g., adding or editing content that requires accessibility information from the author in order to prevent the introduction of accessibility problems). The reason for this is that it is crucial that that accessibility information be correct and complete. This is more likely to occur if the author has been convinced to provide the information voluntarily. Therefore, overly restrictive mechanisms are not recommended for meeting this guideline. The author experience of prompting will be very similar to that of checking (see Guideline B.2.2) for some implementations. For example, in a tool that checks continuously for accessibility problems, the markings used to highlight discovered problems can be considered to be a form of prompting.
B.2.1.1 Guide Accessible (Level A): If authors are prompted for any information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image modification dialog), then the tool also prominently prompts for any accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level A (Level A).
B.2.1.3 Guide Accessible (Level AA): If authors are prompted for any information as content is being added or updated, then the tool also prominently prompts for accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level AA. (Level AA)
B.2.1.5 Guide Accessible (Level AAA): If authors are prompted for any information as content is being added or updated, then the tool also prominently prompts for accessibility information required for that content to meet WCAG Level AAA. (Level AAA)
Rationale: Checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool helps make authors aware of accessibility problems during the authoring process, so they can be immediately addressed.
See also: For more information, see ATAG 2.0 Techniques - Appendix A: Levels of Checking Automation.
Implementation Notes: Despite prompting assistance from the tool (see Guideline B.2.1), accessibility problems may still be introduced. For example, the author may cause accessibility problems while coding by hand or by opening content with existing accessibility problems for editing. In these cases, the prompting mechanisms that operate when markup is added or edited (i.e., insertion dialogs and property windows) must be backed up by a more general checking system that can detect and alert the author to problems anywhere within the content (e.g., attribute, element, programmatic object, etc.). It is preferable that checking mechanisms be well integrated with repair mechanisms (see Guideline B.2.3), so that when the checking system detects a problem and informs the author, the tool immediately offers assistance to the author.
B.2.2.1 Check Accessibility (Level A): At least one individual check is associated with each WCAG Level A Success Criterion that the tool has the functionality to modify (e.g., a tool that inserts images should check for alt text; a tool that can edit captions should check for them). (Level A)
B.2.2.2 Availability: Checking is available prior to publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool. (Level A)
B.2.2.3 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), the relevant content is identified (e.g., displaying the surrounding text, "Is a sign language interpretation provided?") (Level A)
B.2.2.4 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), instructions are provided to help authors to decide. (Level A)
B.2.2.5 Check Accessibility (Level AA): At least one individual check is associated with each WCAG Level AA Success Criterion that the tool has the functionality to modify. (Level AA)
B.2.2.6 View Status: If the authoring tool records accessibility problems found during checking, then a list of any accessibility problems is available to authors prior to the end of the authoring session. (Level AA)
B.2.2.7 Save Status for Repair: If repair assistance is not provided during checking , authors have the option to save the list to facilitate interoperability between checking and repair. (Level AA)
B.2.2.8 Metadata for Discovery: If the authoring tool records accessibility status, then authors have the option to associate this status with the content as metadata to facilitate resource discovery by end users. (Level AA)
B.2.2.9 Check Accessibility (Level AAA): At least one individual check is associated with each WCAG Level AAA Success Criterion that the tool has the functionality to modify. (Level AAA)
Rationale: Repair as an integral part of the authoring process greatly enhances the utility of checking and increases the likelihood that accessibility problems will be properly addressed.
Implementation Notes: Once a problem has been detected by the author or the tool (see Guideline B.2.2), the tool may assist the author to correct the problem. As with accessibility checking, the extent to which accessibility correction can be automated depends on the nature of the problems. Some repairs are easily automated, whereas others that require human judgment may be semi-automated at best.
B.2.3.1 Repair Accessibility (Level A): For each WCAG Level A accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (required in Guideline B.2.2), repair assistance is provided. (Level A)
B.2.3.2 Repair Accessibility (AA): For each WCAG Level AA accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking, repair assistance is provided. (Level AA)
B.2.3.3 Repair Accessibility (AAA): For each WCAG Level AAA accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking, repair assistance is provided. (Level AAA)
Rationale: Improperly generated equivalent alternatives can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.
@@http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2008JulSep/0083.html@@
B.2.4.1 Accept, Modify, Reject: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject any authoring tool-supplied equivalent alternative, prior to insertion. (Level A)
B.2.4.2 Edit Existing: If the authoring tool is capable of adding equivalent alternatives for a type of non-text objects then authors can edit the equivalent alternatives. (Level A)
B.2.4.3 Acceptable Sources: Authoring tools only supply equivalent alternatives from the following sources (Level AA):
B.2.4.4 Save for Reuse: Authors can store, for future reuse, both of the following author-assigned equivalent alternatives (as applicable) (Level AAA):
Note: Equivalent alternatives should not be automatically generated from unreliable sources (e.g., file names should not be used as text alternatives).
Rationale: Templates and other pre-authored content (e.g., clip art, synchronized media, widgets, etc.) that are not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.
B.2.5.1 Templates "A" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets WCAG Level A when used. (Level A)
B.2.5.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses. (Level A)
B.2.5.3 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism, then both of the following are true (Level A):
B.2.5.4 Templates "AA" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets WCAG Level AA when used. (Level AA)
B.2.5.5 New Templates: If authors can use the authoring tool to create new templates for use by a template selection mechanism, they have the option to record the accessibility status of the new templates. (Level AA)
B.2.5.6 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates, then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AA)
B.2.5.7 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true (Level AA):
B.2.5.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AA)
B.2.5.9 Templates "AAA" Accessible: If the authoring tool automatically select templates or pre-authored content, then the selection meets WCAG Level AAA when used. (Level AAA)
Templates may be complicated to check for accessibility due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of templates is instead measured by the accessibility of content (in the final technology) created through their proper use.
Note: In addition to the normative requirements of this principle, implementers should also consider close integration of features that support accessible authoring with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. This type of integration has the potential to:
However, whenever new features are introduced into an authoring tool, striking the right design balance between the similarity with existing features and the provision of new functionality is often more of an art than a science.
Rationale: Some authors are most likely to use the first and easiest authoring action they encounter in the authoring tool user interface that achieves their intended mainstream rendered outcome.
B.3.1.1 Accessible Actions Prominent (Minimum): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions to achieve the same mainstream rendered outcome, then actions that implement accessible authoring practices are at least as prominent as the other action(s) (e.g., a "bold" button in a toolbar inserts semantic rather than formatting markup). (Level A)
B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent (Level A): If authors are provided with multiple options for an authoring task, give equal or greater prominence to any options that will result in content conforming to *WCAG* Level A.
B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent (Level AA): If authors are provided with multiple options for an authoring task, give equal or greater prominence to any options that will result in content conforming to *WCAG* Level AA.
B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent (Level AAA): If authors are provided with multiple options for an authoring task, give equal or greater prominence to any options that will result in content conforming to *WCAG* Level AAA.
font
.
Since using CSS is the more accessible option, it is given a higher prominence
within the authoring interface by: (1) the "CSS Styling" option
appearing above the "FONT Styling" option in the drop down Text
menu, and (2) the CSS styling option being used to implement the one-click
text color formatting button in the tool bar. The association is made clear because the toolbar button has the same icon (an "A" beside a color spectrum) as the "Color" sub-menu item under the "CSS Styling" menu option.). An (Source: mockup by AUWG)B.3.1.2 Accessible Actions Prominent (Enhanced): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions to achieve the same mainstream rendered outcome, then actions that implement accessible authoring practices are more prominent than the other action(s). (Level AA)
Rationale: When accessibility considerations are a natural part of the workflow, they become a routine part of authoring.
B.3.2.1 Sequencing Features: Function that sequences authoring actions for authors (e.g., wizards) provide any accessibility prompts relevant to the content being edited at or before the first opportunity to successfully complete the function. (Level AA)
B.3.2.2 Sequenced Instructions: Instructions (e.g., tutorials, reference manuals, design guides) that consist of a sequence of steps for authors to follow include the relevant accessibility authoring practices in the sequence before the first opportunity to successfully complete the sequence. (Level AA)
Rationale: The accessible content support features will be more likely to be used if they are turned on and are afforded reasonable prominence within the authoring tool user interface.
B.3.3.1 Active by Default: All accessible content support features are active by default. (Level A)
B.3.3.2 Reactivate Option: If authors deactivate an accessible content support feature, then they can always reactivate the feature. (Level A)
B.3.3.3 Deactivation Warning: If authors deactivate an accessible content support feature, then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems. (Level AA)
B.3.3.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent to authors as comparable features related to other types of Web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA)
Rationale: Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.g., prompts for alternatives, accessibility checkers), some authors may not be able to find or use them.
B.3.4.1 Instructions: Instructions for using the accessible content support features appear in the documentation. (Level A)
B.3.4.2 Accessible Authoring Tutorial: A tutorial on the accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided. (Level AAA)
Rationale: Demonstrating accessible authoring as routine practice will encourage its acceptance by some authors.
B.3.5.1 Model Accessible Practice (Minimum): Any examples of authoring practices in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG Level A accessible authoring practices. (Level AA)
input
element in this instruction-level authoring tool makes use
of the label
element in an example in order to reinforce the routine nature
of the pairing. The help text reads: "Input Element: Input elements are form controls. They let the reader of your page use text entry, checkboxes, radio buttons, etc. to interact with your page. The most important attribute of the INPUT element is type. The value of type can be: button, checkbox, file, hidden, image, password, radio, reset, submit, and text. Examples:<label>Enter your name: <input type="text" name="name" maxlength="30"></label><input type="submit">
. (Source: mockup by AUWG)B.3.5.2 Model "AA" Accessible Practice (Enhanced): Any examples of authoring practices in the documentation demonstrate WCAG Level AA accessible authoring practices. (Level AAA)
An exception to these success criteria is allowed for examples that are specifically intended to demonstrate inaccessible practices to be avoided.
This section is normative.
This section is included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].
Conformance means that the authoring tool satisfies the success criteria defined in the guidelines section. This conformance section describes conformance, and lists the conformance requirements.
A conformance claim is an assertion by a claimant that an authoring tool has satisfied the requirements of a chosen ATAG 2.0 conformance profile.
Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular ATAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress towards conformance. This statement would be the same as a conformance claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2.0 conformance level that is being progressed towards, rather than one already satisfied, and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. The author of a "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy of their statement. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement.
Neither W3C, WAI, nor WAI-AUWG take any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance claim that has not been published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or WAI-AUWG.
This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.
Example A-1a: A dialog box offers short text labels for reuse. It shows an "Insert Image" dialog box a thumbnail image of the "earthrise" graphic along with entry fields for "src", "alt", "longdesc", "height" and "width". The "alt" entry field is drop-down list that is shown with several short labels for the same image. The first is a visual description in English ("An earth rise as seen from the moon"), the second is a visual description in French ("Une vue do la terre de la lune") and the third is an English functional label used if the image serves as a link ("Go to pictures of the earth"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-1b: A instruction-level authoring interface offers short text labels for reuse. It shows the author midway through adding markup for an image. After adding the
src
attribute value the author has pressed the spacebar, causing the tool to prompt them with thealt
attribute along with several attribute values, including a visual description in English (alt="An earth rise as seen from the moon"), a visual description in French (alt="Une vue de la terre de la lune") and an English functional label used if the image serves as a link (alt="Go to pictures of the earth"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-2: An authoring interface that prompts for image map area text labels. It is comprised of a list with two columns. In the right-hand column is the URL for each image map area. This can be used as a hint by the author as they fill in the text labels (left-hand column). A checkbox at the bottom provides the option of using the text labels to create a set of text links below the image map. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-3: An authoring interface that prompts for long text descriptions. A "description required" checkbox controls whether the rest of the interface is available. If a description is required, the author then has the choice of opening an existing description file or writing (and saving) a new one. If they choose to use an existing file, there is a text entry area for the name along with a button to browse the file system. If they choose to compose a new description, there is a text entry area for the description followed by a text field for the file name and a button to save it to that location. In the situation shown, the author chooses to use an existing description of "earthrise" so the file name containing the description is shown. In addition, the text of the description from the file is loaded into the compose area ("The earth hangs in the pitch black sky above the gray horizon of the moon. The dazzling blue sphere is covered with creamy white streamers of cloud.") in case the author would like to use this text as a basis for a new description. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-4: A form properties list with five columns that allows the author to simultaneously decide the following for each field: the tab order, form name, field label, control type, and accesskey. In this example, two form field labels are missing, causing prompts (yellow highlighting of the cells and red icons) to be displayed. "Move up" and "move down" buttons are provided. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-7: A instruction-level authoring interface that suggests access key values. The following markup can be seen: "
<body><p>Here is one of the most famous photographs taken from the <a href="moon.html" > moon.</a></p><It was taken with a special <a href=camera.html" accesskey="c">camera.</p>"
. A pop-up menu, centered on the word "moon" suggest accesskey="moon", because "moon" begins with "m", followed by the rest of the alphabet in order. Accesskey="c" is missing, however, since it is already used as an accesskey later in the document (for the "camera" link). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-8: A dialog box for choosing sufficiently contrasting color combinations. The dialog box has two tabs: one for text color and one for background color. A "hide low contrast choices" checkbox has been selected, so the palette of colors has been pre-screened so that sufficient contrast between the text and the current background color is assured. All other colors have been grayed out. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-11: A WYSIWYG authoring tool that detects opportunities for enhancing structure and alerts the author. On the left side is the WYSIWYG editing view with the title of the page ("Mars") displayed with a blue underline. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for the title and sees the following options: "Repair: Mark as heading (a sub-menu displays the different levels of header (i.e., h1, h2, etc.)) for the author to choose", "Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". On the right, an element inspector makes clear that the title is currently marked up as a paragraph. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-12: A WYSIWYG authoring tool that prompts the author to decide whether the top row of a table contains the table header cells. The top row of the rendered table is outlined in blue to indicate an accessibility problem. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for one of the cells in the top row and sees the following options: "Repair: Set as header row", "Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example A-13: A WYSIWYG authoring tool that indicates to the author that a heading has been misused to indicate emphasis. In the WYSIWYG editing view, some text ("VERY HOT") is rendered large and bold because it has been improperly marked as a heading and it is therefore marked with a blue underline as an accessibility problem. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for the text and sees the following options: "Repair: Mark with style (a sub-menu displays the different styles available: .bodytext, .quotetext, .hot_emphasis, .cold_emphasis)", "Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". (Source: mockup by AUWG).
![]()
Example A-14a: A instruction-level authoring interface that indicates the reading level of a page and whether it exceeds a limit determined by the author's preference settings. The code view includes the following markup:
<body><h1>Mars</h1><p>Mars is the fourth planet in the solar system, orbiting at a distance of 1.5 AU, with a period of 687 days.</p></body></html>
. Then in a status bar below the text entry area, is a reading level display: "Reading Level: 11.2 (target<8)". The 11.2 is highlighted with a yellow background and bold text to indicate that the target is exceeded. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
![]()
Example A-14b: An authoring interface that prompts the author to enter an acronym expansion. The rendered text reads: "The 'habitable zone' around a star is the region of that star’s solar system in which liquid water is possible. The continuous habitable zone (CHZ) is the region of the solar system which has remained in the zone, even during changes in the star’s radiation pattern." The acronym "CHZ" is identified with a blue underline as an accessibility problem. The author has brought up a pop-up menu for the acronym and sees the following options: "Repair: Enter acronym expansion…", "Check Accessibility...", and "Help...". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
![]()
onactivate
[DOM]) instead of device-specific events (e.g., onclick
),
or route multiple events (onclick
and onkeypress
)
through the same functions.onfocus
event to elements
that are targeted with the onmouseover
event.ondblclick
) and avoid these events
as default options.
Example A-16: An authoring interface for prompting the author about whether a paragraph that contains many numbers might be made more clear with the addition of a chart or graph. On the left side of the interface is the rendered text: " Planet Orbits: The inner planets orbit the sun relatively quickly with Mercury orbiting the sun in 88 days, Venus in 224 days, Earth in 365 days, and Mars in 687 days. Compare this to Jupiter’s, 4332 day orbit." This text is marked with a yellow exclamation mark icon. On the right side is the following explanation of the error icon: "This paragraph contains 5 numbers. Would readers benefit if a chart or graph of this information was added?". "Yes" and "no" buttons are provided. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.
In automated checking, the tool is able to check for accessibility problems automatically, with no human intervention required. This type of check is usually appropriate for checks of a syntactic nature, such as the use of deprecated elements or a missing attribute, in which the meaning of text or images does not play a role.
Example B-1: A summary interface for a code-based authoring tool that displays the results of an automated check. The display is a tree-view where the leftmost nodes are the names of errors ("Image missing alternate text" and "Text boxes missing labels) with number of errors appended (e.g., "[6]") and the sub-items are the problem instances with line numbers appended (e.g., "(Line:45)"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example B-2: A WYSIWYG interface that displays the results of an automated check in a WYSIWYG authoring view using blue highlighting around or under rendered elements (in this case, the "earthrise" image and some "blinking text"), identifying accessibility problems for the author to correct. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Example B-3: An authoring interface of an automated check in a instruction-level authoring view. The text is: "
<body><p>Image:</p><img href="pic123.gif"/><hr/><blink>Blinking text</blink></body></html>
".In this view, the text of elements with accessibility problems (img
andblink
) is shown in a blue font, instead of the default black font. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
In semi-automated checking, the tool is able to identify potential problems, but still requires human judgment by the author to make a final decision on whether an actual problem exists. Semi-automated checks are usually most appropriate for problems that are semantic in nature, such as descriptions of non-text objects, as opposed to purely syntactic problems, such as missing attributes, that lend themselves more readily to full automation.
Example B-4: A dialog box that appears once the tool has detected an image without a description attribute. However, since not all images require description, the author is prompted to make the final decision ("Does this image require descriptive text?"). The author can confirm the at this is indeed an accessibility problem by choosing and move on to the repair stage by choosing "Yes" or press "No" to mark the potential problem, as not a problem at all. Additional help is available in the form of a tip: "An image requires descriptive text when the information it contains cannot be conveyed in 10 words or less using an alternate text label." (Source: mockup by AUWG)
In manual checking, the tool provides the author with instructions for detecting a problem, but does not automate the task of detecting the problem in any meaningful way. As a result, the author must decide on their own whether or not a problem exists. Manual checks are discouraged because they are prone to human error, especially when the type of problem in question may be easily detected by a more automated utility, such as an element missing a particular attribute.
Example B-5: A dialog box that reminds the author to check if there are any words in other languages in the document with the message: "Does this document contain any words or phrases in a different language than the main content?". The author can move on to the repair stage by pressing "Yes" or press "No" to mark the potential problem, as not a problem at all. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.
In manual repairing, the tool provides the author with instructions for making the necessary correction, but does not automate the task in any substantial way. For example, the tool may move the cursor to start of the problem, but since this is not a substantial automation, the repair would still be considered "manual". Manual correction tools leave it up to the author to follow the instructions and make the repair by themselves. This is the most time consuming option for authors and allows the most opportunity for human error.
Example C-1: Repair instructions in a code level editing view. In this case, the following markup is being edited:
<body><p>Image:</p><img href="pic123.gif"/><hr/><blink>Blinking text</blink></body></html>
. Since the problems have already been detected in the checking step and the selected offending elements in a code view (<img href="pic123.gif"/>
and<blink>Blinking text</blink>
) have been highlighted in blue text. When the author puts focus on the highlighted text, a short repair instruction ("Repair: Add 'alt' attribute") appears in a status bar with a button than will open a longer explanation in the help system. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
In semi-automated repairing, the tool can provide some automated assistance to the author in performing corrections, but the author's input is still required before the repair can be complete. For example, the tool may prompt the author for a plain text string, but then be capable of handling all of the markup required to add the text string to the content. In other cases, the tool may be able to narrow the choice of repair options, but still rely on the author to make the final selection. This type of repair is usually appropriate for corrections of a semantic nature.
Example C-2: A semi-automated repair in a WYSIWYG editing view. The author has right-clicked on an image of the "earthrise" that has been highlighted with a blue outline by the automated checker system. This has brought up a pop up menu with the following choices: "Repair: Set Alt -Text: 'An earth rise as seen from the moon'", "Enter different alt-text…", " Skip", "Ignore", "Check Accessibility...", "Help...". The author must decide whether the label text that the tool suggests is appropriate. Whichever option the author chooses, the tool will handle the details of updating the content. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
In automated repairing, the tool is able to make repairs automatically, with no author input required. For example, a tool may be capable of automatically adding a document type to the header of a file that lacks this information. In these cases, very little, if any, author notification is required. This type of repair is usually appropriate for corrections of a syntactic or repetitive nature.
Example C-3: An announcement that an automated repair has been completed ("All instances of <blink> have been replaced with CSS styling according to your preferences."). The author selects an "ok" to proceed. An "undo" button is provided in case the author wishes to reverse the operation. In some cases, automated repairs might be completed with no author notification at all. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
This list is representative, but not necessarily complete.
(a) Negotiated Interruption: A negotiated interruption is caused by interface mechanisms (e.g., icons or highlighting of the element, audio feedback) that alert the author to a problem, but remain flexible enough to allow the author to decide whether to take immediate action or address the issue at a later time. Since negotiated interruptions are less intrusive than immediate or scheduled interruptions, they can often be better integrated into the design workflow and have the added benefit of informing the author about the distribution of problems within the document. Although some authors may choose to ignore the alerts completely, it is not recommended that authors be forced to fix problems as they occur. Instead, it is recommended that negotiated interruption be supplemented by scheduled interruptions at major editing events (e.g., when publishing), when the tool should alert the author to the outstanding accessibility problems.
Example D-1: A WYSIWYG editing view makes the author of problems detected automatically by means of a blue line under text or around rendered objects with accessibility problems. Here, red lines are also visible, highlighting spelling errors in the text. The author can decide to address the problems at a later time. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
(b) Scheduled Interruption: A scheduled interruption is one in which the author has set the tool to alert them of accessibility issues on a configurable schedule. One option for the schedule might be to have prompts associated with the interface mechanisms for significant authoring events, such as opening, saving, closing, committing, or publishing files. At the significant authoring event, the author would be informed of the problem, while at the same time they would not be prevented from saving, publishing, printing, etc. A potential downside of postponing corrective actions is that by the time the prompt is displayed, the author may not have sufficient time or inclination to make the required changes, especially if they are extensive.
Example D-2: A "Publish" dialog box allows the author to publish multiple files at once, however in the case shown here, two of the files have uncorrected accessibility errors which causes them not to meet a "standard of publishing" the author has set for themselves in the options. As a result the files are selected, a message is displayed ("The selected files do not meet your specified standard for publishing.") and the "publishing" button is grayed out. This standard is referred to generally since it is assumed that it might include spelling and grammar standards as well as accessibility issues. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
(c) Immediate Interruption: An immediate interruption is the most intrusive timing option because the attention of the author is actively diverted from the current editing task by the notification of some issue. This might be achieved, for instance, by an alert dialog. This type of alert presents multiple usability problems and should be used sparingly because it interferes with the normal design workflow. Intrusive warnings are probably only appropriate when the window of opportunity for correcting a serious accessibility problem is about to close, such as when an author decides to publish the content in question. In general, negotiated and scheduled interruptions are preferred.
Example D-3: A modal dialog box contains the message: "This image is missing alternate text". The author must press the "OK" button to continue. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
Dealing flexibly with real-time content production. When authoring tools produce content in real time, it is usually no longer possible to delay addressing accessibility problems until an arbitrary point in the future. At the same time, due to the time pressure, authors in real-time environments tend to be less receptive to intrusive prompts. Nevertheless, tools that allow this kind of authoring should still take accessibility issues into account by supporting the following:
(a) Determination of Participant Requirements: If real-time authoring is consumed by individuals with no special communicative needs, there may be no need for real-time prompting. However, as with any other Web content it is often impossible for the author to know all of the needs of the actual or potential participants. Therefore, the best practice is to create real-time content that conforms with WCAG to the greatest extent possible. However, when this is not possible, a real-time authoring tool might be able to facilitate graceful degradation of accessibility by polling the participants (see "Request whiteboard descriptions" checkbox in the figure) or in some cases checking the profiles of participants (e.g., using CCPP, ACCLIP) to determine which types of accessibility practices would offer the greatest advantage in the short time available. Once this information is compiled, the tool can prompt the author (or see Assistant/Peer Author) to correct problems appropriately (preferably during Preparation Time). When it is not possible to know, with certainty, the needs of all participants, the tool should still assume that accessible content is required. This is especially true if the results of the session will be archived.
(b) Assistant/Peer Author: In some cases, it may be possible to designate one or more secondary authors in the live community, who can receive and respond to prompts for supplemental information generated as the primary author proceeds uninterrupted. The secondary author might be an unrelated specialist, analogous to Sign language interpreter, a co-author (helpful for describing technical drawings, etc.), or in some situations any member of the session audience (i.e., a peer).
(c) Preparation Time: If the authoring tool allows the author time to pre-assemble materials for a live presentation (e.g., a professor preparing for an online class), this authoring is not considered real-time authoring. The authoring tool has the opportunity and the obligation to support accessible authoring as described elsewhere in this document.
(d) Archiving: If the session will be archived, there may be other opportunities to increase the accessibility of the content of the archive by guiding the author through a process to check for and repair accessibility problems after the real-time session has ended, but prior to archiving.
If it has been determined that the author must provide real-time supplements, but no preparation time or assistant author are available, then in addition to allowing the author control of the nature and timing of prompting, the authoring tool can facilitate the inclusion of supplements by:
Example E-1: A real-time presentation in a whiteboard/chat client environment that has been enhanced to provide real-time descriptions. The example has five panes. On the far left is a list of participants ("Presenter", "John (You)", "Jane", and "Alice"). In the upper-middle is the chat "Presenter> I suggest a space theme for the slide presentation.", "Image File Inserted (by Presenter) Description: An earthrise as seen from the surface of the moon.", "Presenter> The white text would go...", "Marker (by Presenter) Description> Draws a red box..., and "Presenter> in this area." Notice that descriptions are appearing here. The lower-middle is the message composition area for this user and is blank. The upper-right is the whiteboard. So far there is an image of "earthrise" and a red hand-drawn rectangle on the "canvas". The whiteboard tools are "select box", "text tool", "marker", "eraser", "insert image", "line tool", "rectangle tool", and an "ellipse tool". In the lower-right is an area for describing a drawing action - in this case the "Presenter' use of the Marker". Notice that any participant can describe the events on the whiteboard even as the dialog continues. (Source: mockup by AUWG).
This section is normative.
This section is included here for informative purposes. The normative version appears in the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 [ATAG20].
This section is informative.
There are two recommended ways to refer to the "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (and to W3C documents in general):
In almost all cases, references (either by name or by link) should be to a specific version of the document. W3C will make every effort to make this document indefinitely available at its original address in its original form. The top of this document includes the relevant catalog metadata for specific references (including title, publication date, "this version" URI, editors' names, and copyright information).
An XHTML 1.0 paragraph including a reference to this specific document might be written:
<p>
<cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ATAG20-20081016/">
"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0,"</a></cite>
J. Treviranus, J. Richards, J. Spellman, eds.,
W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.
The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/">latest version</a> of this document is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.</p>
For very general references to this document (where stability of content and anchors is not required), it may be appropriate to refer to the latest version of this document. Other sections of this document explain how to build a conformance claim.
This section is informative.
For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR/. Some documents listed below may have been superseded since the publication of this document.
Note: In this document, bracketed labels such as "[WCAG20]" link to the corresponding entries in this section. These labels are also identified as references through markup.
Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler, Geoff Deering, Barry A. Feigenbaum, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Karen Mardahl, Charles McCathieNevile, Matt May, Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Heather Swayne, Gregg Vanderheiden, Carlos Velasco, and Jason White.
This document would not have been possible without the work of those who contributed to ATAG 1.0.
This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) under contract number ED05CO0039. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
[Contents] [Techniques] [Checklist]
[Contents] [Guidelines]