Thoughts on AU Evaluation of Image Insertion

WHAT I HAVE SO FAR.


Applicable AU checkpoints:

Evaluation Process:

(1) Does the tool allow users to insert image elements into a markup
document (Web authoring tool, word processessor)?
    YES: The tool is a "Markup Editor".

(2) Does the tool allow users to create or edit images (paint or drawing
program)?
    YES: The tool is an "Image Editor".

If the tool is a "Markup Editor" then complete section A.  If the tool
is an "Image Editor" then complete section B.  If the tool a "Markup
Editor" and an "Image Editor" then complete both sections.

A. Markup Editor

A1. Are ALT and LONGDESC for IMG supported (HTML4) - ATAG 1.1?
A2. Are the values of ALT and LONGDESC preserved during re-saving,
reformatting, etc. - ATAG 1.2?
A3. Is a meaningful ALT (or LONGDESC where necessary) present when
images are part of auto-generated markup (wizard, etc.) - ATAG 3.1?



B. Image Editor




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

1.4 Ensure that templates provided by the tool conform to the Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority]

2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they are
available and appropriate for a task. [Priority 2] 

2.2 Ensure that the tool automatically generates valid markup. [Priority
1] 

2.3 If markup produced by the tool does not conform to W3C
specifications, inform the author. [Priority 3] 

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

3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content conforms to the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Relative Priority] 

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

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

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

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

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

5.1 Ensure that functionality related to accessible authoring practices
is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of the tool.
[Priority 2] 

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

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

















-- 
Jan Richards
Access Software Designer
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
University of Toronto

Phone: (416) 946-7060
Fax:   (416) 971-2896
Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca

Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2000 16:44:19 UTC