Regarding Accessibility of Authoring Tools

Regarding Section 4:

We need to identify all of the access guidelines that are unique to
authoring tools and would not be covered in the other two types of sources
we listed in the introduction to section 4.

In earlier discussions the following unique considerations were identified:
- the existence of graphic elements or artifacts, such as graphic
representations of start and end tags in the document, or web pages
represented by icons in web site managers (e.g., Hyperbolic views). These
would not be covered by standard interface conventions.
- recognition that the author may need a different view to edit the web
content than they wish it to be ultimately displayed. This implies display
preferences that do not manifest themselves in the ultimate markup or style
declarations
- there are strategies that would make it easier to navigate and manipulate
a marked up document that are distinct from navigation strategies in a
browser and text manipulation strategies in a word processor
- authoring tools make frequent use of third party DLLs, Beans or other
modules that are bundled and linked into the main authoring product.
Although the main interface may be accessible these are frequently not.
- authoring tools also make frequent use of non standard pallets and
dialogue boxes which are covered in some of the other guidelines but might
warrant specific mention in these guidelines.

Are there any areas missed in the above list? Are there any we should leave
out?

Jutta