Checkpoints:
ATAG 1.0 = 28
Suggested ATAG 2.0 = 21
If the tool automatically generates markup, many authors will be unaware of
the accessibility status of the final content unless they expend extra effort to
review it and make appropriate corrections by hand. Since many authors are
unfamiliar with accessibility, authoring tools are responsible for automatically
generating accessible markup, and where appropriate, for guiding the author in
producing accessible content.
Many applications feature the ability to convert documents from other formats
(e.g., Rich Text Format) into a markup format specifically intended for the Web
such as HTML. Markup changes may also be made to facilitate efficient editing
and manipulation. It is essential that these processes do not introduce inaccessible markup or remove
accessibility content, particularly when a tool hides the markup changes from
the author's view.
Checkpoints:
- 1.1 Ensure that the author
can produce accessible
content in the markup
language(s) or content type(s) supported
by the tool. [Priority 1]
At minimum, provide a code editing view that will accept
manually-coded accessibility content and ensure that this content is preserved
as per Checkpoint 1.2.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.1
- 1.2 Ensure that the tool
preserves all accessibility
information during authoring, transformations,
and conversions.
[Priority 1]
At minimum, preserve all valid markup, regardless of
whether or not the tool is able to be render it all.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.2
- 1.3 Ensure that when the
tool automatically generates markup it conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0 [WCAG10].
[Relative Priority]
This applies to all situations in which the tool adds
markup to a document except those in which the author has specified a particular
markup implementation.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.3
- 1.4
Ensure that templates
provided by the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
[WCAG10].
[Relative Priority]
Ensure that all pre-authored content for the
tool conforms to the Web Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. [Relative Priority]
For example, templates must include accessible markup and content. Images
and multimedia must include accessible alternative, such as alt text and long
descriptions for images and captions, auditory descriptions and collated text
transcriptions for movies. Applets and scripts must be accessible and include
functional alternatives.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 1.4
Conformance with standards promotes interoperability and accessibility by
making it easier to create specialized user agents that address the
needs of users with disabilities. In particular, many assistive technologies
used with browsers and multimedia players are only able to provide access to Web
documents that use valid
markup. Therefore, valid markup is an essential aspect of authoring tool
accessibility.
Where applicable use W3C
Recommendations, which have been reviewed to ensure accessibility and
interoperability. If there are no applicable W3C Recommendations, use a
published standard that enables accessibility.
Checkpoints:
- 2.1 Use the latest versions of W3C Recommendations when they
are available and appropriate for a task. [Priority 2]
- W3C specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that they
do not compromise accessibility, and where possible, they enhance it. If
the tool produces markup that does not conform to W3C recommendations, inform
the author.
- Techniques for checkpoint
2.1
- 2.2 Ensure that the tool
automatically generates valid markup. [Priority 1]
- Conforming to published markup standards is
necessary for user agents to be able to render
Web content in a manner appropriate to a particular user's needs.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 2.2
2.3 If markup produced by
the tool does not conform to W3C specifications, inform
the author. [Priority 3]
<<< MOVED INTO THE EXPLANTION FOR 2.1>>>
Techniques
for checkpoint 2.3
Well-structured information and equivalent alternative
information are cornerstones of accessible design, allowing
information to be presented in a way most appropriate for the needs of the user
without constraining the creativity of the author. Yet producing equivalent
information, such as text alternatives for images and auditory descriptions of
video, can be one of the most challenging aspects of Web design, and authoring
tool developers should attempt to facilitate and automate the mechanics of this
process. For example, prompting authors to include equivalent alternative
information such as text equivalents, captions, and auditory descriptions at
appropriate times can greatly ease the burden for authors. Where such
information can be mechanically determined and offered as a choice for the
author (e.g., the function of icons in an automatically-generated navigation
bar, or expansion of acronyms from a dictionary), the tool can assist the
author. At the same time, the tool can reinforce the need for such information
and the author's role in ensuring that it is used appropriately in each
instance.
Checkpoints:
- 3.1 Prompt
the author to provide equivalent
alternative information (e.g., captions,
auditory
descriptions, and collated
text transcripts for video). [Relative Priority]
- ???
Note: Some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
2.0 [WCAG10]
may not apply.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.1
- 3.2 Help the author create
structured content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority]
- ???
Note: Some checkpoints in Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
2.0 [WCAG10]
may not apply.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.2
3.3 Ensure that prepackaged content
conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10].
[Relative Priority]
For example, include captions, an auditory description, and a
collated text transcript with
prepackaged movies. <<< COMBINED WITH 1.4
>>> Refer
also to checkpoint 3.4.
Techniques
for checkpoint 3.3
- 3.3 Do
not automatically generate equivalent
alternatives. Do not reuse previously authored alternatives without author
confirmation, except when the function of the object
is known with certainty. [Priority 1]
- The function of an object may be
"known with certainty" when the object is placed by the tool for
a specific purpose or the user has defined a purpose. For example, if a tool
automatically generates a navigation bar for all pages on a site, it is acceptable
to propagate the text equivalent(s) for images
that link to searching, the table of contents, etc. When a new object is inserted
and the function is unknown, the tool should prompt the author to enter
an appropriate equivalent alternative without providing a default
entry, such as the file name. A default entry should only be offered if it
is human authored and has been previously associated with the object by the
author or within a pre-packaged directory for the tool (ex. clip art gallery).
Refer also to checkpoint
1.4 and checkpoint
3.5.
- Techniques for
checkpoint 3.4
- 3.4 Provide
functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative
equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3]
Note: These alternative equivalents may be
packaged with the tool, written by the author, retrieved from the Web, etc.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 3.5
Many authoring tools allow authors to create documents with little or no
knowledge about the underlying markup. To ensure accessibility, authoring tools
must be designed so that they can (where possible, automatically) identify inaccessible markup, and enable
its correction even when the markup itself is hidden from the author.
Authoring tool support for the creation of accessible Web content should
account for different authoring styles. Authors who can configure the tool's
accessibility features to support their regular work patterns are more likely to
accept accessible authoring practices (refer to guideline 5). For
example, some authors may prefer to be alerted to accessibility problems when
they occur, whereas others may prefer to perform a check at the end of an
editing session. This is analogous to programming environments that allow users
to decide whether to check for correct code during editing or at
compilation.
Note: Validation of markup is an essential aspect of
checking the accessibility of content.
Checkpoints:
- 4.1 Check
for and inform
the author of accessibility
problems. [Relative Priority]
Note: Accessibility problems
should be detected automatically where possible. Where this is not possible,
the tool may need to prompt the author to make decisions
or to manually check for certain types of problems.
At a minimum, prompt the author to manually
check for specific problems. Ideally, the checks should be automated to the
greatest extent possible.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.1
- 4.2 Assist authors in correcting
accessibility
problems. [Relative Priority]
- At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with the accessibility
checking required by checkpoint
4.1. Ideally, the author should be guided by examples,
guidelines and automated tools.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.2
4.3 Allow the author to preserve
markup not recognized by the tool. [Priority 2]
Note: The author may have included
or imported markup that enhances accessibility but is not recognized by the
tool.
<<< COVERED BY 1.2 >>>
Techniques
for checkpoint 4.3
- 4.3Provide
the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status. [Priority 3]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 4.4
4.5 Allow the author to
transform presentation
markup that is misused to convey structure into structural
markup, and to transform presentation markup used for style into style
sheets. [Priority 3] <<<
TECHNIQUE FOR 3.2 >>>
Techniques
for checkpoint 4.5
When a new feature is added to an existing software tool without proper
integration, the result is often an obvious discontinuity. Differing color
schemes, fonts, interaction styles, and even software stability can be factors
affecting author acceptance of the new feature. In addition, the relative
prominence of different ways to accomplish the same task can influence which one
the author chooses. Therefore, it is important that creating accessible content
be a natural process when using an authoring tool.
Checkpoints:
- 5.1 Ensure that all
functionality (prompts, checkers, information icons,
etc.) related to accessible
authoring practices is naturally integrated into the overall look and
feel of the tool. [Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 5.1
- 5.2 Ensure that accessible
authoring practices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
[WCAG10]
Priority 1 checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by
the author. [Priority 2]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 5.2
Web authors may not be familiar with accessibility issues that arise when
creating Web content. Therefore, help and documentation must include
explanations of accessibility problems, and
should demonstrate solutions with examples.
Checkpoints:
- 6.1 Document all features that
promote the production of accessible content. [Priority 1]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.1
- 6.2 Ensure that creating
accessible content is a naturally integrated part of the documentation
,
including examples. [Priority 2]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 6.2
6.3 In a dedicated
section, document all features of the tool that promote the production of
accessible content. [Priority 3]
Techniques
for checkpoint 6.3 <<< MAKE TECHNIQUE FOR 6.1 >>>
The authoring tool is a software program with standard user interface
elements and as such must be designed according to relevant user interface
accessibility guidelines. When custom interface components are created, it is
essential that they be accessible through the standard access mechanisms for the
relevant platform so that assistive technologies can be used with them.
Some additional user interface design considerations apply specifically to Web authoring tools. For
instance, authoring tools must ensure that the author can edit (in an editing view) using one set of
stylistic preferences and publish using different styles. Authors with low
vision may need large text when editing but want to publish with a smaller
default text size. The style preferences of the editing view must not affect the
markup of the published document.
Authoring tools must also ensure that the author can navigate a document
efficiently while editing, regardless of disability. Authors who use screen
readers, refreshable braille displays, or screen magnifiers can make limited use
(if at all) of graphical artifacts that communicate the structure of the
document and act as signposts when traversing it. Authors who cannot use a mouse
(e.g., people with physical disabilities or who are blind) must use the slow and
tiring process of moving one step at a time through the document to access the
desired content, unless more efficient navigation methods are available.
Authoring tools should therefore provide an editing view that conveys a
sense of the overall structure and allows structured navigation.
Note: Documentation, help files, and installation are part
of the software and need to be available in an accessible form.
Checkpoints:
- 7.1 Follow
Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and
conventions (Priority 1 for standards and conventions that are essential to
accessibility; Priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility; Priority
3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility).
- The techniques for this checkpoint include references to checklists and
guidelines for a number of platforms and to general guidelines for accessible applications.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.1
- 7.2 Allow the author to change
the presentation within editing
views without affecting the document markup. [Priority 1]
- This allows the author to edit the document according to personal requirements,
without changing the way the document is rendered when published.
At minimum, this means supporting the display preferences set for the operating
system and providing alternate textual representations for non-text elements
during editing.
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.2
7.3
Allow the author to edit all properties
of each element
and object in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1] <<<COMBINED
WITH 7.5 >>>
- Techniques for
checkpoint 7.3
- 7.3
Ensure
that the editing
view allows navigation via the structure of the document in an accessible
fashion.
Enable accessible navigation via document structure
during editing [Priority 1]
- Techniques
for checkpoint 7.4
- 7.4
Enable
editing of the structure of the document in an accessible fashion. [Priority 2]
Enable editing of the document structure and
all properties of each element of the document in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1]
- Techniques for
checkpoint 7.5
7.6 Allow the author to search
within editing
views. [Priority 2]
Techniques for
checkpoint 7.6 <<< THIS IS ALREADY VERY COMMON, DO
WE NEED IT? >>>