Contents | Guideline 1 | Guideline 2 | Guideline 3 | Guideline 4 | References
Copyright © 2003 W3C ® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
@@Notes while editing@@
@@Should we include specific examples for the well known XML applications (SVG, SMIL, MathML, VRML, WAP, etc)? -> make sure to keep up to date with WCAG@@
@@Editor note: As part of the techniques writing process, changes are being made to the text of success criteria and checkpoints. Once approved, these changes need to be made back in the guideline document.@@
This guideline requires that authoring tools must promote accessible authoring practices within the tool as well as smoothly integrate any functions added to meet the other requirements in this document. The checkpoint requirements for this section include ensuring the priority for accessible means of completing an authoring tasks (Checkpoint 4.1), ensuring the availability of accessibility-related functions (Checkpoint 4.2), and ensuring that accessibility-related functions fit into the appearance and interactive style of the tool (Checkpoint 4.4).
Rationale: Authors are most likely to use the first and easiest options.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.2.1: If there are
two or more authoring options for performing the same authoring task (e.g.
setting colour, inserting multimedia, etc.), and one option results in
content that meets WCAG and the other does not, the more accessible option
can be given |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.2.2: Completely removing less accessible options can simplify the task of meeting this success criteria. |
Rationale: If the features that support accessible authoring are difficult to find and activate, they are less likely to be used. Ideally, these features should be turned on by default.
@@BAF: "logical" grouping rules should take precedence. If necessary the accessibility options can be on separate pages if easily accessed through the many flow of the application. Typically this will not be the case. For example, have an "description" field as a part of an image selection dialog is both natural and appropriate.@@
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.3.2: The tool can inform the author that disabling any continuously active process may cause problems to develop that might not otherwise. |
|
@@JR: the techniques here are pretty weak - we must ensure they relate to success criteria@@
Technique 4.3.3: Considerations for accessibility, such as short text label and long description attributes, can appear on the same dialog as the source attribute, rather than buried behind an "Advanced..." button. @@BAF: "can" should be "must" here.@@ |
|
Technique 4.3.4: Efficient and fast access to accessibility-related settings with as few steps as possible needed to make any changes that will generate accessible content. (@@KM concerned about this@@) | |
@@BAF spelling is an example of a verification action. this may lead one to think its the only one (ie if no spell check, we can ignore this).@@ |
|
Technique 4.3.6: Sometimes several input fields must be filled in order to make a single element accessible. Instead of dispersing these prompts over multiple dialog boxes, it can be more effective to draw them together into one group of controls with a visible tab or other method for accessing the group.@@new-from intro text@@ |
Rationale: A configurable tool is more likely to be adatpable to the work habits or more authors.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.X.1: Consider how much author configurability to provide. Author acceptance of the accessibility features of an authoring tool will likely depend on the degree to which these features can be integrated into the existing workflows of authors. That is why the ATAG 2.0 definition of "prompting" clearly states that: "the form and timing that this prompting takes can be author configurable". In other words, the author should be able to control of how and when assistance in avoiding accessibility problems is rendered by the tool. This author configurability will help reconcile the additional accessibility authoring tasks with the regular work pattern of the author. To achieve this, tools may offer the author a range of checking and prompting options (see Figure 3.1.1), including: [@@new@@]
|
|
|
|
All functions that support accessible authoring practices should allow author preferences to be configurable to allow for different authoring styles. Custom configurations should improve use of the tool and make authors more receptive to assistive interventions from the authoring tool.
- section on configurability in techniques for checkpoint 3.1 could be used as starting point for techniques for this checkpoint (4.X)
Rationale: Accessible design as an afterthought or separate process is much more onerous and therefore costly than when accessibility is considered from the start. If the authoring tool supports a workflow in which the author considers accessibility before and/or during the authoring process it is more likely that accessible authoring practices will become a common practice. This is analogous to internationalization, which is much easier when it is considered from the beginning rather than handled last.
@@ BAF: Wizards are the way to go: . Repair tools can address pre-existing content or content edits after use of a wizard (assuming you cannot reenter the wizard). @@ @@BAF: wizards etc should be a major prompting mechanism. Many samples should be shown such as the table example.@@
@@JT: Maybe have an example showing a template....?NTS?@@
@@JT: We need to have new techniques for tools that could try to get author to put down structure first and seperately than presentation - swappable styles@@
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.1.1: Prompting can be integrated into sequencing mechanisms (e.g. design aids, wizards, templates) at a point early enough in the authoring process that there is less chance that it will be bypassed. |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.1.2: Checking that is automated or semi-automated can be integrated into sequencing mechanisms (e.g. design aids, wizards, templates) |
Example: See 4.1.5(b) |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.1.3: Repair that is automated or semi-automated can be integrated into sequencing mechanisms (e.g. design aids, wizards, templates) |
Example: This illustration shows ... @@PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTING CONTENT AND STRUCTURE BEFORE STYLING@@
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.1.4: Immediate access to some basic accessibility documentation and one-step access to more comprehensive documentation can be provided to provide support to the author as needed. |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 4.1.5: A tight coupling between all of the accessibility-related functions leads to a more seamless authoring experience. |
|
Techniques for Success Criteria 2:
The P,C,R&D must occur before completion of authoring workflow.
[@@wording is still flexible@@] [@@maybe we can allow authoring to define scope
of workflow with input from author@@]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Technique 3.2.2: Consider the timing options to be used for informing the author of the results of the check. Options include: Immediate Interruption, Negotiated Interruption and Scheduled Interruption. [@@Efficiency, best time to do it, considerations.@@] @@JT, GP working on wording@@ |
1. Immediate Interruption: An immediate interruption is the most intrusive timing option because the attention of the author is actively diverted from the current editing task by the notification of some issue. This might be achieved, for instance, by an alert dialog. This type of alert presents multiple usability problems and should be used sparingly because it interferes with the normal design workflow. Intrusive warnings are probably only appropriate when the window of opportunity for correcting a serious accessibility problem is about to close, such as when an author decides to publish the content in question. In general, we recommend using the less disruptive timing options. |
|
|
|
2. Negotiated Interruption (Preferred): A negotiated interruption is caused by interface mechanisms (icons, line or color highlighting of the element, audio feedback, etc.) that alert the author to a problem, but remain flexible enough to allow the author to decide whether to take immediate action or address the issue at a later time. Since negotiated interruptions are less intrusive than immediate interruptions they can often be better integrated into the design workflow and have the added benefit of informing the author about the distribution of errors within the document. Although some authors may choose to ignore the alerts completely, it is not recommended that authors be forced to fix problems. Instead, it is recommended that, at some major editing event (e.g., when publishing), the tool should remind the author of the continuing unresolved accessibility issue. |
|
|
|
3. Scheduled Interruption: A scheduled interruption is one in which the author has set the tool to alert them of accessibility issues on a configurable schedule. One option for the schedule might be to have prompts associated with the interface mechanisms for significant authoring events such as saving, exiting, publishing, or page generation, etc. At the significant authoring event, the author would be informed of the problem, while at the same time they would not be prevented from saving, publishing, printing, etc. For example, a "save as" dialog could display an accessibility warning and an option to launch a correction utility after saving (see Figure 3.2.7). A potential downside of this type of prompting is that by the time the prompt is displayed (publishing, etc.), the author may not have sufficient time to make the required changes, especially if they are extensive. |
|
|
Rationale: Most authors are reluctant to use features that depart from the conventions of a tool. Detached accessibility modules also decrease the likelihood authors will check for and repair accessibility problems with their code.[@@added by MM@@]
@@BAF: This one tends to be the default case (one would rarely use a different style for accessibility prompting vs other prompting) so wee need to make this more a thing to look out for vs a conscious design action. We should include other samples in the pattern below.@@
Contents | Guideline 1 | Guideline 2 | Guideline 3 | Guideline 4 | References