[contents] [guidelines] [checklist]

W3C

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Status of this document

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

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

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

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

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

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

A log of changes between successive Working Drafts is available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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


Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the GuidelinesTechniques are organized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Checkpoint Priorities

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

The priority levels are assigned as follows:

[Priority 1]
If the checkpoint is essential to meeting the goals.
[Priority 2]
If the checkpoint is important to meeting the goals.
[Priority 3]
If the checkpoint is beneficial to meeting the goals.
[Relative Priority]

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

Conformance to these Guidelines

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

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

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

Conformance levels

A conformance claim must indicate what conformance level is met:

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

Well-formed conformance claims

A well-formed claim must include the following information:

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

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

Here is an example of a claim expressed in HTML:

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

Validity of a claim

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

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

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

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

Conformance Icons

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

Guidelines

access-supportSupport accessible authoring practices.

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

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

Checkpoints for guideline 1:

1support-access-featuresEnsure that the author can produce accessible content in the markup language(s) supported by the tool.
1leave-access-contentEnsure that the tool preserves all accessibility information during authoring, transformations, and conversions.
Rgenerate-access-markupEnsure that when the tool automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]].
[#C+Ruse-accessible-templates] Ensure that templates provided by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]].

[+Glanguage-support]Generate standard markup.

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

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

Checkpoints:

[#C+2prefer-w3c] Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are available and appropriate for a task.
W3C specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that they do not compromise accessibility, and where possible, they enhance it.
[#C+1ensure-published-DTD] Ensure that the tool automatically generates valid markup.
This is necessary for user agents to be able to render Web content in a manner appropriate to a particular user's needs.
[#C+3declare-extended-DTD] If markup produced by the tool does not conform to W3C specifications, inform the author.

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

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

Checkpoints:

[#C+Rprovide-missing-alt] Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video).
Note: Some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] may not apply.
WCAG Checkpoint 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element [Priority 1]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 9.1 and WCAG checkpoint 13.10.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.1
HTML
  • prompt for longdesc and alt for img elements
  • prompt for alt for area elements
  • prompt for text transcript for audio objects.
  • prompt for collated text transcript for movies.
SVG
Prompt for a title and desc for each g group
SMIL
Prompt for alt, longdesc, a text or textstream object for audio, image and video objects
WCAG Checkpoint 1.2 Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map. [Priority 1]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.5 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.2
HTML
  • Use the same User interface for server and client side image map creations, including prompting for alternatives for each region. Use alternatives provided to generate redundant text-based links for server-side maps.
  • Prompt for text which describes the range and the effect of possible coordinate entries, and generate an alternative, form-based entry system.
WCAG Checkpoint 1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.3
SMIL
  • Prompt the author to provide an audio track that includes description, if necessary with an alternative version of the video.
WCAG Checkpoint 1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.4
HTML
  • Use a format such as SMIL which allows for the inclusion and synchronization of equivalent tracks
XML
  • Use SMIL timing to synchronize equivalents
WCAG Checkpoint 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map. [Priority 3]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.2 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.5
HTML
Use the alt associated with area elements to build a redundant text navigation bar
WCAG Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.1
WCAG Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.2
HTML, SVG, CSS
Where only one color has been specified (for example a background but not foreground) ask the author to specify (or confirm default) colors for other parts, where possible from a range that has sufficient contrast.
WCAG Checkpoint 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 6 and WCAG guideline 11.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.1
HTML
  • Where images are readable through Optical Character Recognition (OCR) as text, use text with CSS styling.
XHTML, XML
  • Where images are readable through Optical Character Recognition (OCR) as text use SVG
  • Where images are recognizable as mathematical content, use MathML
  • Prompt the author to use a markup language for text, mathematics, etc.
WCAG Checkpoint 6.2 Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.2
HTML
  • Where scripts change the src attribute of images, prompt the author to include changes in the alt attribute or element content.
SVG, XHTML
  • Where SMIL animation is used, prompt the author to ensure that desc and title elements are appropriately updated by the animation
WCAG Checkpoint 6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.3
HTML
Ask for equivalents for scripts, and applets, for example a movie (and collated text transcripts, audio, etc)
WCAG Checkpoint 6.5 Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.5
WCAG Checkpoint 7.1 Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. [Priority 1]
Note. People with photosensitive epilepsy can have seizures triggered by flickering or flashing in the 4 to 59 flashes per second (Hertz) range with a peak sensitivity at 20 flashes per second as well as quick changes from dark to light (like strobe lights).
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.1
HTML (relying on lowsrc attribute - not in W3C recommendation)
Prompt for a non-animated "lowsrc" version of animated images.
WCAG Checkpoint 7.2 Until user agents allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink (i.e., change presentation at a regular rate, such as turning on and off). [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.2
WCAG Checkpoint 7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages. [Priority 2]
When a page includes moving content, provide a mechanism within a script or applet to allow users to freeze motion or updates. Using style sheets with scripting to create movement allows users to turn off or override the effect more easily. Refer also to WCAG guideline 8.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.3
WCAG Checkpoint 8.1 Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 6.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 8.1
WCAG Checkpoint 9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape. [Priority 1]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.1, WCAG checkpoint 1.2, and WCAG checkpoint 1.5.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.1
HTML
Use the same interface for defining areas of client- and server-side maps, and produce the image as client-side where possible
WCAG Checkpoint 11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.1
Raster images (PNG, JPEG, GIF)
  • Use RDF to incorporate textual equivalents in image encodings
Vector images
  • Use SVG, and prompt the author to provide appropriate title and desc elements for each g element.
WCAG Checkpoint 11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.) [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.3
WCAG Checkpoint 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.4
General
Note that the alternative page is required to be an accessible version, rather than simply a plain text or other partial view of the information
WCAG Checkpoint 13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 13.5.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.2
Images
Metadata can be added to most image formats commonly used on the Web, including PNG, JPEG, GIF, and SVG. See the W3C Note "Describing and retrieving photos using RDF and HTTP" [[RDFPIC]].
WCAG Checkpoint 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. [Priority 3]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 1.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 14.2
HTML
Provide libraries of accessible clip art to illustrate common concepts, or allow the author to build them. See also ATAG 3.5
[#C+Rhelp-provide-structure] Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation.
Note: Some checkpoints in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] may not apply.
WCAG Checkpoint 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element [Priority 1]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 9.1 and WCAG checkpoint 13.10.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.1
WCAG Checkpoint 1.2 Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map. [Priority 1]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.5 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.2
HTML
Ask the author to identify regions in an image map, or to describe how the coordinates will be used so that a form-based input method can be generated.
WCAG Checkpoint 1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation. [Priority 1]
Synchronize the auditory description with the audio track as per WCAG checkpoint 1.4. Refer to WCAG checkpoint 1.1 for information about textual equivalents for visual information.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.3
WCAG Checkpoint 1.4 For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.4
WCAG Checkpoint 1.5 Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map. [Priority 3]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.2 and WCAG checkpoint 9.1.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 1.5
HTML
Use the alt associated with area elements to build a redundant text navigation bar
WCAG Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.1
General
Prompt the author to identify a class, or markup element for uses of color.
WCAG Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. [Priority 2 for images, Priority 3 for text].
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 2.2
General
  • Provide a monochrome preview for the author to test themselves.
WCAG Checkpoint 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 6 and WCAG guideline 11.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.1
General
[-Cprefer-w3c]
  • For mathematical content use MathML [[MATHML]], TeX or LaTeX.
  • For tabular data (for example timetables) use an HTML table, or XML.
  • In some cases it is helplful to include a graphic form as well as a markup-based form. For example, a graph may be presented along with the XML source data used to generate it. Or it may be an SVG image [[SVG]] which contains the source data within the SVG file, as RDF [[RDF]].
WCAG Checkpoint 3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.3
Text / hypertext
  • Recognize formatting patterns and convert them to style rules.
  • Provide a view which allows the author to edit the layout and styling effects independently of the text content.
WCAG Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.5
Text / hypertext
  • Prompt the author to identify headings and subheadings
  • Provide an "outline" or "structure" view which allows the author to easily grasp the heading structure, and edit it.
WCAG Checkpoint 3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.6
text / hypertext
  • Include lists (marked as lists) in a collapsible structure view
WCAG Checkpoint 3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 3.7
HTML
Automatically include (configurable or localized) quotation marks around quotations. This will encourage authors to use the markup, and not to misuse it.
Where material appears within quote marks ask the author if this is a quotation.
WCAG Checkpoint 4.1 Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions). [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 4.1
Text / hypertext
  • Use a dictionary lookup to recognize words, and changes in the natural language used.
  • Provide an option in spellcheckers to identify a word or phrase that is not recognised as being in a natural language other than the primary language of the document.
WCAG Checkpoint 4.2 Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 4.2
HTML
Ask the author to provide an expansion for abbr and acronym elements or confirm that a previously supplied one should be used again.
General
Provide a dictionary mechanism that recognizes abbreviations and prompts the author to include appropriate markup.
WCAG Checkpoint 4.3 Identify the primary natural language of a document. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 4.3
General:
Ask the author to identify the language of any document. Provide a mechanism for setting a default.
WCAG Checkpoint 5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.1
WCAG Checkpoint 5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells. [Priority 1]
For example, in HTML, use THEAD, TFOOT, and TBODY to group rows, COL and COLGROUP to group columns, and the "axis", "scope", and "headers" attributes, to describe more complex relationships among data.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.2
HTML
Ask the author to group columns, rows, or blocks of cells that are related.
WCAG Checkpoint 5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version). [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 3.3.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.3
HTML
  • Prompt the author to identify tables which are used as layout devices.
  • For layout tables, provide a linearized version, and offer it as a link from the table or as a replacement. An example tool which linearizes tables is tablin. It is also possible to provide a link direct to tablin [[TABLIN]].
WCAG Checkpoint 5.4 If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.4
WCAG Checkpoint 5.5 Provide summaries for tables. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.5
HTML
  • In a table creation wizard, include a summary or caption dialog
  • Render the caption, title and summary of a table, or prompt for content.
  • dialog image:                                                                                                                                                                                                                  screenshot                                                                                                                                   Amaya's user interface guides the author to include a caption for tables,in the following way: When the author creates a table, a dialog is generated which asks for number of rows, columns, border width

                                                                                                                                       empty                                                                               table                           inserted                                                                                                                                                                                                                screenshot                                                                                                                                   The author selects the appropriate information and a table is created. The cursor is placed at the position of the table caption. The status line, which appears at the bottom of the image, shows that the position is in the caption element of the table. (This is a standard part of the Amaya user interface).

WCAG Checkpoint 5.6 Provide abbreviations for header labels. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 5.6
HTML
Prompt for an abbreviated form of each table header (th)
WCAG Checkpoint 6.1 Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.1
HTML
Provide a "draft" view which does not apply styling.
WCAG Checkpoint 6.2 Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.2
SVG
Prompt for appropriate changes to title and desc elements which are children of the target of an animate.
HTML
See also frames.
WCAG Checkpoint 6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 1.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.3
HTML
  • Prompt for server-side alternatives for scripts and applets
  • Prompt for noscript content for each script.
  • Prompt for alternative content for applets and programmatic objects (for example object elements which have a code attribute).
WCAG Checkpoint 6.4 For scripts and applets, ensure that event handlers are input device-independent. [Priority 2]
Refer to the definition of device independence.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.4
Applet development
  • Prompt the author to include device-independent means of activation
WCAG Checkpoint 6.5 Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 6.5
HTML
Ask the author for:
  • appropriate links and content to include in a noframes element
  • a server-side alternative to applets and script functions
WCAG Checkpoint 7.1 Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.1
WCAG Checkpoint 7.2 Until user agents allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink (i.e., change presentation at a regular rate, such as turning on and off). [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.2
WCAG Checkpoint 7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 8.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.3
WCAG Checkpoint 7.5 Until user agents provide the ability to stop auto-redirect, do not use markup to redirect pages automatically. Instead, configure the server to perform redirects. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 7.5
WCAG Checkpoint 8.1 Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies [Priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2.]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 6.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 8.1
WCAG Checkpoint 9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape. [Priority 1]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 1.1, WCAG checkpoint 1.2, and WCAG checkpoint 1.5.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.1
HTML
where regions are not easily defined, ask the author to provide information that can be used to generate a form-based input method and explains how the coordinates input will be used. For example, on a map the input might be used to lookup latitude and longitude of a point and then give information about that point.
WCAG Checkpoint 9.2 Ensure that any element that has its own interface can be operated in a device-independent manner. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 8.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.2
WCAG Checkpoint 9.3 For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.3
WCAG Checkpoint 9.4 Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.4
HTML
Where there are only a few links that change in each page of a collection, ask the author if they should receive focus first. If so, then give them a tabindex, leaving the rest to after the tabindexed links have been focussed.
WCAG Checkpoint 9.5 Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links (including those in client-side image maps), form controls, and groups of form controls. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 9.5
HTML
Ask authors to specify an accesskey for links that appear common to a number of pages
WCAG Checkpoint 10.1 Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.1
HTML
Where a link or active element will spawn a new window, prompt the author for title text to make this clear.
WCAG Checkpoint 10.2 Until user agents support explicit associations between labels and form controls, for all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure that the label is properly positioned. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 12.4.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.2
WCAG Checkpoint 10.4 Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.4
HTML
Prompt the author for default place-holder text. Offer the value of the name attribute as a default.
WCAG Checkpoint 10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 10.5
WCAG Checkpoint 11.2 Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.2
WCAG Checkpoint 11.3 Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences (e.g., language, content type, etc.) [Priority 3]
Note. Use content negotiation where possible.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.3
WCAG Checkpoint 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 11.4
WCAG Checkpoint 12.1 Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.1
HTML
  • Prompt the author for a short, human-readable title for each frame. Default text presented in the prompt could use the title defined for the document referenced in the src
WCAG Checkpoint 12.2 Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.2
HTML
  • Prompt the author for a longdesc for each frame in a frameset.
  • Prompt the author to add a noframes section to the frameset. Encourage the author to include sufficient links to navigate the site, and relevant information. For example, where a frameset defines a navigation frame and a welcome page, include the content of each of these frames in the noframes.
WCAG Checkpoint 12.3 Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 3.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.3
HTML
Where there are more than 10 choices in a list (select, checkbox or radio boxes) ask the author to identify subgroups
WCAG Checkpoint 12.4 Associate labels explicitly with their controls. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 12.4
HTML
Ask authors to mark explicitly the labels for form inputs (input and textarea elements)
WCAG Checkpoint 13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.1
General
Prompt the author to provide text which can be used as a title for a link.
WCAG Checkpoint 13.2 Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites. [Priority 2]
Refer also to WCAG checkpoint 13.5.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.2
General
Ask authors for information about a page or site. If its function is known (see also WCAG checkpoint 13.9) add this information as metadata.
WCAG Checkpoint 13.3 Provide information about the general layout of a site (e.g., a site map or table of contents). [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.3
General
Prompt the author to provide a link or content describing the structure of the site, and its accessibility features.
WCAG Checkpoint 13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner. [Priority 2]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.4
WCAG Checkpoint 13.5 Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.5
WCAG Checkpoint 13.6 Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group. [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.6
HTML
Ask authors if lists of links are a group and should be a map.
WCAG Checkpoint 13.9 Provide information about document collections (i.e., documents comprising multiple pages.). [Priority 3]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.9
General
  • Pattern-matching - ask authors to specify the role of pages linked from a navigation bar.
  • Where common names are used (search, home, map) as links, ask the author to confirm these functions for use in linking.
WCAG Checkpoint 13.10 Provide a means to skip over multi-line ASCII art. [Priority 3]
Refer to WCAG checkpoint 1.1 and the example of ascii art in the glossary.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 13.10
HTML
Where a PRE element is used with substantial punctuation and non-words, ask for text alternative.
WCAG Checkpoint 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content. [Priority 1]
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 14.1
General
  • Provide readability ratings for text.
  • Provide a thesaurus function
  • Provide a grammar-checking function
WCAG Checkpoint 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. [Priority 3]
Refer also to WCAG guideline 1.
Techniques for WCAG checkpoint 14.2
[#C+Rinclude-pro-descs] Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]].
For example, include captions, an auditory description, and a collated text transcript with prepackaged movies. [-Cno-default-alt]
[#C+1no-default-alt] Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty.
For example, prompt the author for a text equivalent of an image. If the author has already provided a text equivalent for the same image used in another document, offer to reuse that text and prompt the author for confirmation. If the tool automatically generates a "Search" icon, it would be appropriate to automatically reuse the previously authored text equivalent for that icon. Refer also to [#Cinclude-pro-descs] and [#Chave-alt-registry].

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

[#C+3have-alt-registry] Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents for multimedia objects.
Note: These alternative equivalents may be packaged with the tool, written by the author, retrieved from the Web, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Checkpoints:

[#C+Rnotify-on-schedule] Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems.
Note: Accessibility problems should be detected automatically where possible. Where this is not possible, the tool may need to prompt the author to make decisions or to manually check for certain types of problems.
[#C+Rdont-require-knowledge] Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems.
At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the accessibility checking required by [#Cnotify-on-schedule]
2notify-changesAllow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool.
Note: The author may have included or imported markup that enhances accessibility but is not recognized by the tool.
[#C+3progress-feedback] Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status.
[#C+3allow-transformation] Allow the author to transform presentation markup that is misused to convey structure into structural markup, and to transform presentation markup used for style into style sheets.

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

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

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

Checkpoints:

[#C+2integrate-features] Ensure that functionality related to accessible authoring practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the tool.
[#C+2visible-means] Ensure that accessible authoring practices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] Priority 1 checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author.

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

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

Checkpoints:

[#C+1document-features] Document all features that promote the production of accessible content.
[#C+2accessibility-everywhere] Ensure that creating accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, including examples.
[#C+3emphasize-universal-benefit] In a dedicated section, document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessible content.

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

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

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

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

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

Checkpoints:

[#C-Ruse-system-conventions] Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and conventions (Priority 1 for standards and conventions that are essential to accessibility; Priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility; Priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility).
The techniques for this checkpoint include references to checklists and guidelines for a number of platforms and to general guidelines for accessible applications.
[#C+1independent-styles] Allow the author to change the presentation within editing views without affecting the document markup.
This allows the author to edit the document according to personal requirements, without changing the way the document is rendered when published.
[#C+1edit-elements] Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible fashion.
[#C+1navigation-access] Ensure that the editing view allows navigation via the structure of the document in an accessible fashion.
[#C+2edit-structure] Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessible fashion.
[#C+2have-search] Allow the author to search within editing views.

Techniques for User Prompting

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

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

What does prompting mean?

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

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

User configurable prompting schedule

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

Types of Prompting

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

Prompts

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

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

Field Priority:

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

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

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

Highlighting:

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

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

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

Related Prompts:

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

Screenshot of HomeSite tag editor for input element D

Screenshot of HomeSite tag editor for input element.

Sequential Prompts:

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

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

Screenshot of Word2000 spelling and grammar checkerD

Screenshot of Word2000 spelling and grammar checker.

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

Screenshot of the A-prompt missing alt text dialogD

Screenshot of the A-prompt missing alt text dialog.

Alerts:

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

Intrusive Alerts

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

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

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

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

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

Unintrusive Alerts

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

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

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

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

Screenshot of Frontpage2000 showing the red font used to indicate syntax errorsD

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

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

Glossary of Terms and Definitions

Accessibility (Also: Accessible)
Within these guidelines, "accessible Web content" and "accessible authoring tool" mean that the content and tool can be used by people regardless of disability.
To understand the accessibility issues relevant to authoring tool design, consider that many authors may be creating content in contexts very different from your own:
  • They may not be able to see, hear, move, or may not be able to process some types of information easily or at all;
  • They may have difficulty reading or comprehending text;
  • They may not have or be able to use a keyboard or mouse;
  • They may have a text-only display, or a small screen.
Accessible design will benefit people in these different authoring scenarios and also many people who do not have a physical disability but who have similar needs. For example, someone may be working in a noisy environment and thus require an alternative representation of audio information. Similarly, someone may be working in an eyes-busy environment and thus require an audio equivalent to information they cannot view. Users of small mobile devices (with small screens, no keyboard, and no mouse) have similar functional needs as some users with disabilities.
Accessibility Awareness
An "accessibility-aware" application is one that has been designed to account for authors' differing needs, abilities, and technologies. In the case of authoring tools, this means that (1) care has been taken to ensure that the content produced by user-authors is accessible and (2) that the user interface has been designed to be usable with a variety of display and control technologies.
Accessibility Information
"Accessibility information" is content, including information and markup, that is used to improve the accessibility of a document. Accessibility information includes, but is not limited to, equivalent alternative information.
Accessibility Problem (Also: Inaccessible Markup)
Inaccessible Web content or authoring tools cannot be used by some people with disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [[WCAG10]] describes how to create accessible Web content.
Accessible Authoring Practice
"Accessible authoring practices" improve the accessibility of Web content. Both authors and tools engage in accessible authoring practices. For example, authors write clearly, structure their content, and provide navigation aids. Tools automatically generate valid markup and assist authors in providing and managing appropriate equivalent alternatives.
Alert
An "alert" draws the author's attention to an event or situation. It may require a response from the author. An alert warns the author that there are problems that need to be addressed. Attracting the author's attention artfully can be challenging, since author perceptions of alerts, prompts, and warnings can influence opinions of the tool and even of accessible authoring.
An Unintrusive Alert is an alert such as an icon, underlining, or gentle sound that can be presented to the author without necessitating immediate action. For example, in some word processors misspelled text is highlighted without forcing the author to make immediate corrections. These alerts allow authors to continue editing with the knowledge that problems will be easy to identify at a later time. However, authors may become annoyed at the extra formatting or may choose to ignore the alerts altogether.
An Interruptive Alert is an informative message that interrupts the editing process for the author. For example, interruptive alerts are often presented when an author's action could cause a loss of data. Interruptive alerts allow problems to be brought to the author's attention immediately. However, authors may resent the constant delays and forced actions. Many people prefer to finish expressing an idea before returning to edit its format.
Alternative Information (Also: Equivalent Alternative)
Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user. Equivalent alternatives play an important role in accessible authoring practices since certain types of content may not be accessible to all users (e.g., video, images, audio, etc.). Authors are encouraged to provide text equivalents for non-text content since text may be rendered as synthesized speech for individuals who have visual or learning disabilities, as braille for individuals who are blind, or as graphical text for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability. For more information about equivalent alternatives, please refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines WCAG 1.0 [[WCAG10]].
Text equivalents for still images can be short ("Site Map Link") or long (e.g., "Figure 4 shows that the population of bacteria doubled approximately every twenty hours over the first one hundred hours, increasing from about 1000 per milliliter to about 32,000 per milliliter."). Text equivalents for audio clips are called "text transcripts". Captions are essential text equivalents for movie audio. Another essential text equivalent for a movie is a "collated text transcript." An essential non-text equivalent for movies is "auditory description" of the key graphical elements of a presentation.
Attribute
This document uses the term "attribute" as used in SGML and XML ([[XML]]): Element types may be defined as having any number of attributes. Some attributes are integral to the accessibility of content (e.g., the "alt", "title", and "longdesc" attributes in HTML).
In the following example, the attributes of the beverage element type are "flavour", which has the value "lots", and "colour", which has the value "red":
<beverage flavour="lots" colour="red">my favourite</beverage>
Auditory Description
An "auditory description" provides information about actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes in a video. Auditory descriptions are commonly used by people who are blind or have low vision, although they may also be used as a low-bandwidth equivalent on the Web. An auditory description is either a pre-recorded human voice or a synthesized voice (recorded or automatically generated in real time). The auditory description must be synchronized with the auditory track of a video presentation, usually during natural pauses in the auditory track.
Authoring Tool
An "authoring tool" is any software that is used to produce content for publishing on the Web. Authoring tools include:
  • Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content (e.g., WYSIWYG HTML and XML editors);
  • Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web format (e.g., word processors or desktop publishing packages);
  • Tools that transform documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to transform desktop publishing formats to HTML);
  • Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is intended for use on the Web (e.g., video production and editing suites, SMIL authoring packages);
  • Tools for site management or site publication, including tools that automatically generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-fly conversion and Web site publishing tools;
  • Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).
Automated Markup Insertion Function
"Automated markup insertion functions" are the features of an authoring tool that allow the author to produce markup without directly typing it. This includes a wide range of tools from simple markup insertion aids (such as a bold button on a toolbar) to markup managers (such as table makers that include powerful tools such as "split cells" that can make multiple changes) to high level site building wizards that produce almost complete documents on the basis of a series of author preferences.
Captions
"Captions" are essential text equivalents for movie audio. Captions consist of a text transcript of the auditory track of the movie (or other video presentation) that is synchronized with the video and auditory tracks. Captions are generally rendered graphically and benefit people who can see but are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or cannot hear the audio.
Conversion Tool
A "conversion tool" is any application or application feature (e.g., "Save as HTML") that transforms convent in one format to another format (such as a markup language).
Check for
As used in [#Cnotify-on-schedule], "check for" can refer to three types of checking:
  1. In some instances, an authoring tool will be able to check for accessibility problems automatically. For example, checking for validity ([#Censure-published-DTD]) or testing whether an image is the only content of a link.
  2. 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.
  3. In some cases, a tool must rely mostly on the author, and can only ask the author to check. For example, the tool may prompt the author to verify that equivalent alternatives for multimedia are appropriate. This is the minimal standard to be satisfied. Subtle, rather than extensive, prompting is more likely to be effective in encouraging the author to verify accessibility where it cannot be done automatically.
Current User Selection
When several views co-exist, each may have a selection, but only one is active, called the "current user selection." User selections may be rendered specially (e.g., graphically highlighted).
Description Link (D-link)
A "description link", or D-Link, is an author-supplied link to additional information about a piece of content that might otherwise be difficult to access (image, applet, video, etc.).
Document
A "document" is a series of elements that are defined by a markup language (e.g., HTML 4 or an XML application).
Editing an element
"Editing an element" involves making changes to one or more of an element's attributes or properties. This applies to all editing, including, but not limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, making changes to a property dialog or direct User Interface manipulation.
Editing View
An "editing view" is a view provided by the authoring tool that allows editing.
Element
An "element" is any identifiable object within a document, for example, a character, word, image, paragraph or spreadsheet cell. In [[HTML4]] and [[XML]], an element refers to a pair of tags and their content, or an "empty" tag - one that requires no closing tag or content.
Focus
The "focus" designates the active element (e.g., link, form control, element with associated scripts, etc.) in a view that will react when the user next interacts with the document.
Generation Tool
A "generation tool" is a program or script that produces automatic markup "on the fly" by following a template or set of rules. The generation may be performed on either the server or client side.
Image Editor
An image editor is a graphics program that provides a variety of options for altering images of different formats.
Inform
To "inform" is to make the author aware of an event or situation through alert, prompt, sound, flash, or other means.
Inserting an element
"Inserting an element" involves placing that element's markup within the markup of the file. This applies to all insertions, including, but not limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, choosing an automated insertion from a pull-down menu or tool bar button, "drag-and-drop" style insertions, or "paste" operations.
Markup Language
Authors encode information using a "markup language" such as HTML [[HTML4]], SVG [[SVG]], or MathML [[MATHML]].
Multimedia Authoring Tool
A "multimedia authoring tool" is software that facilitates integration of diverse media elements into an comprehensive presentation format. Multimedia includes video, audio, images, animations, simulations, and other interactive components.
Presentation Markup
"Presentation markup" is markup language that encodes information about the desired presentation or layout of the content. For example, Cascading Style Sheets ([[CSS1]], [[CSS2]]) can be used to control fonts, colors, aural rendering, and graphical positioning. Presentation markup should not be used in place of structural markup to convey structure. For example, authors should mark up lists in HTML with proper list markup and style them with CSS (e.g., to control spacing, bullets, numbering, etc.). Authors should not use other CSS or HTML incorrectly to lay out content graphically so that it resembles a list.
Prompt
A "prompt" is a request for author input, either information or a decision. A prompt requires author response. For example, a text equivalent entry field prominently displayed in an image insertion dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts can be used to encourage authors to provide information needed to make content accessible (such as alternative text equivalents).
Property
A "property" is a piece of information about an element, for example structural information (e.g., it is item number 7 in a list, or plain text) or presentation information (e.g., that it is marked as bold, its font size is 14). In XML and HTML, properties of an element include the type of the element (e.g., IMG or DL), the values of its attributes, and information associated by means of a style sheet. In a database, properties of a particular element may include values of the entry, and acceptable data types for that entry.
Publishing Tool
A "publishing tool" is software that allows content to be uploaded in an integrated fashion. Sometimes these tools makes changes such as local hyper-reference modifications. Although these tools sometimes stand alone, they may also be integrated into site management tools.
Rendered Content
The "rendered content" of an element is that which the element actually causes to be rendered by the user agent. This may differ from the element's structural content. For example, some elements cause external data to be rendered (e.g., the IMG element in [[HTML4]]), and in some cases, browsers may render the value of an attribute (e.g., "alt", "title") in place of the element's content.
Rendered View, Preview
A "rendered view" simulates for the author how a user will interact with the content being edited once published.
Selection
A "selection" is a set of elements identified for a particular operation. The user selection identifies a set of elements for certain types of user interaction (e.g., cut, copy, and paste operations). The user selection may be established by the user (e.g., by a pointing device or the keyboard) or via an accessibility Application Programmatic Interface (API). A view may have several selections, but only one user selection.
Site Management Tool
A "site management tool" provides an overview of an entire Web site indicating hierarchical structure. It will facilitate management through functions that may include automatic index creation, automatic link updating, and broken link checking.
Structural Markup
"Structural markup" is markup language that encodes information about the structural role of elements of the content. For example, headings, sections, members of a list, and components of a complex diagram can be identified using structural markup. Structural markup should not be used incorrectly to control presentation or layout. For example, authors should not use the BLOCKQUOTE element in HTML [[HTML4]] to achieve an indentation visual layout effect. Structural markup should be used correctly to communicate the roles of the elements of the content and presentation markup should be used separately to control the presentation and layout.
Transcript
A "transcript" is a text representation of sounds in an audio clip or an auditory track of a multimedia presentation. A "collated text transcript" for a video combines (collates) caption text with text descriptions of video information (descriptions of the actions, body language, graphics, and scene changes of the visual track). Collated text transcripts are essential for individuals who are deaf-blind and rely on braille for access to movies and other content.
Transformation
A "transformation" is a process that changes a document or object into another, equivalent, object according to a discrete set of rules. This includes conversion tools, software that allows the author to change the DTD defined for the original document to another DTD, and the ability to change the markup of lists and convert them into tables.
User Agent
A "user agent" is software that retrieves and renders Web content. User agents include browsers, plug-ins for a particular media type, and some assistive technologies.
User-Configurable Schedule
A "user-configurable schedule" allows the user to determine the type of prompts and alerts that are used, including when they are presented. For example, a user may wish to include multiple images without being prompted for alternative information, and then provide the alternative information in a batch process, or may wish to be reminded each time they add an image. If the prompting is done on a user-configurable schedule they will be able to make that decision themselves. This technique allows a tool to suit the needs a wide range of authors.
Video Editor
A "video editor" is software for manipulating video images. Video editing includes cutting segments (trimming), re-sequencing clips, and adding transitions and other special effects.
View
Authoring tools may render the same content in a variety of ways; each rendering is called a "view." Some authoring tools will have several different types of view, and some allow views of several documents at once. For instance, one view may show raw markup, a second may show a structured tree, a third may show markup with rendered objects while a final view shows an example of how the document may appear if it were to be rendered by a particular browser. A typical way to distinguish views in a graphic environment is to place each in a separate window.

Acknowledgments

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

References

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

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

Resources

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

Operating system and programming guidelines

Authoring tools and other services

Accessibility resources

Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0