Generally, the greater the degree of author control of authoring decisions, the greater the potential for the introduction of accessibility problems. Since different types of authoring tools differ greatly in the extent to which they automate authoring decisions, ????. Plain text editors automate very few decisions, tag-based editors may automate low level syntax but leave the arrangement of elements up to the user, while WYSIWYG editors may limit the author to providing semantic information only (i.e. text, images, etc.).
Manually following accessibility authoring practices is not a trivial task for most authors. Authoring tool developers should attempt to facilitate and automate this process. For example, tools may assist authors to follow specific practices by suggesting accessible authoring practices or prompting for information that cannot be generated automatically, such as equivalent alternatives (alternate text, descriptions, captions, etc.).
Many authoring tools already allow authors to create documents with little or no need for 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 when either the markup is hidden from the author or the author does not know how to correct it.
Authoring tool support for the creation of accessible Web content should account for different authoring styles. Authors who can choose how to configure the tool's accessibility features to support their regular work patterns are more likely to feel comfortable with their use of the tool and be receptive to interventions from the tool. (see guideline 4). 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 choice is analogous to that offered in programming environments that allow users to decide whether to check for correct code during editing or at compilation.
Rationale: Appropriate assistance should result in typical tool users following accessible authoring practices. Different tools will accomplish this goal in ways appropriate to their products, processes and users.
Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.1, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.1
Success Criteria:
Rationale: Once accessibility problems are present, a means of detecting them will be necessary.
Techniques: Techniques for checkpoint 3.2, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.2.
Success Criteria:
Rationale: Once accessibility problems have been found, authors may need help to correct them properly.
Techniques: Techniques for checkpoint 3.3, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.3
Success Criteria:
Rationale: Improperly generated alternatives can interfere with accessibility checking.
Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.4, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.4
Success Criteria:
Rationale: Simplifying the initial production and later reuse of alternative equivalents will encourage authors to use them more frequently. In addition, such a alternative equivalent management system will facilitate meeting the requirements of Checkpoint 3.1 and Checkpoint 3.3.
Techniques: Implementation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.5, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.5
Success Criteria:
Rationale: A summary will allow authors to monitor the progress of their accessibility status and learning more about accessibility problems.
Techniques: Techniques for checkpoint 3.6, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.6.
Success Criteria:
Many authors will not be familiar with Web accessibility issues, while authors that are familiar with these issues may still not know how the tool can help to address them. Therefore, help and other supplied documentation must include explanations of accessibility problems, and should demonstrate solutions with examples.
Rationale: As with any feature, documentation of all the accessibility-related features of the tool (dialog boxes, utility, code views, etc.) will facilitate authors in finding and using them effectively.
Techniques: Techniques for checkpoint 3.7, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.7.
Success Criteria:
Rationale: Authors will be more likely to use the accessibility features of the tool effectively, if they have a workflow strategy for integrating the new accessibility related tasks into the Web content authoring that they already perform.
Techniques: Techniques for checkpoint 3.8, Evaluation Techniques for Checkpoint 3.8
Success Criteria: