Introduction to Guideline 4:

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).

Checkpoints in Guideline 4:

• Techniques for checkpoint 4.2 Ensure that the most accessible option for an authoring task is given priority. [Priority 2]
• Techniques for checkpoint 4.3 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are always clearly available to the author [Priority 2]
• Techniques for checkpoint 4.X Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation functions are configurable [Priority 2]
• Techniques for checkpoint 4.1. Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are integrated into the workflow of Web Content development. [Priority 2]
• Techniques for checkpoint 4.4 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are naturally integrated into the appearance and interactive style of the tool. [Priority 3]

Notes:

• These techniques are informative. There are no claims made, implicit or explicit, that by following any of the techniques in this document any conformance requirements of the ATAG2.0 WD will be satisfied. Rather, these techniques represent an illustrative sampling of approaches that might be useful in considering the subject of authoring tool accessibility. There may be many other ways a tool might be designed and still meet the normative criteria contained in the success criteria.
• The techniques all use the phrasing "can", rather than "must" or "should". This is intended to reinforce to the reader the non-normative status of this document. It should be noted that some techniques are so important to meeting their respective success criteria, that for all practical purposes, the techniques are required. These techniques have been marked with an asterisk (*).

ATAG Checkpoint 4.2: Ensure that the most accessible option for an authoring task is given priority. [Priority 2]

Rationale: Authors are most likely to use the first and easiest options.

Techniques for:
Success Criteria 1: When an authoring action has several more than one markup implementations (e.g. the color of text can be changed with presentation markup or style sheets) @@ changed by JR@@, those markup implementation(s) that meet the requirements of WCAG must have equal or higher prominence than those markup implementations that do not meet the @@WCAG@@ requirements.

	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 user authoring interface prominence.
	Example 4.2.1: This illustration shows an authoring tool that supports text formatting tasks via two options: using CSS and using FONT. Since the action the CSS is the more accessible action, it is given a higher prominence within the authoring interface. Specifically, the CSS option appears above the FONT option in the drop down Format>Font menu and the CSS option is also used to implement the one click tool bar text formatting buttons. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing] @@BAF: We should enumerate options: (below assume LTR order, may need to adjust for RTL) For a list or combobox: place the accessible items at the top of the list For a button set: place the accessible items at the left For menu/toolbars: highlight/emphasize the more accessible options (for example, give them mnemonics)@@
	Technique 4.2.2: Completely removing less accessible options can simplify the task of meeting this success criteria.

ATAG Checkpoint 4.3: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are always clearly available to the author [Priority 2]

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.@@

Techniques for:
Success Criteria 1: Continuously active processes (e.g. a checker that underlines errors as they occur, a checker that runs at each save, a checker that runs every 10 minutes, etc.) that implement functions required by checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7 must be enabled by default.

	Technique 4.3.1: Optrional continuously active processes controlled by preference settings can br on be default.
	Example 4.3.1: This illustration shows the preference setting area of an authoring tool, open to an "Accessibility" section. Settings that control continuously active processes are circled in red. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]

Techniques for:
Success Criteria 2: If the author chooses to disable these continuously active processes, then the tool must inform the author of the consequences of their choice.

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.

Example 4.3.2: This dialog box might be activated if the author unchecks a "highlighting accessibility related fields" feature, as shown in figure 4.3.1. Notice that the wording used in this example makes reference to the possibility that documents will be "less accessible to many users" and that "in some jurisdictions accessibility is a legal requirement". (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]

Techniques for:
Success Criteria 3: The accessibility-related @@accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation@@ must have at least the same prominence as@@ prompting, checking, repair and documentation@@ for other mandatory information in the tool @@(e.g. prompting for file names during saves or checking for and repairing spelling or syntax errors).@@

@@JR: the techniques here are pretty weak - we must ensure they relate to success criteria@@

ATAG Checkpoint 4.X: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation functions are configurable. [Priority 2]

Rationale: A configurable tool is more likely to be adatpable to the work habits or more authors.

Techniques for
Success Criteria 1: The configurability of functions related to accessibility prompting, checking, repair, and documentation must be equivalent to that of comparable functions in terms of number of options controllable by the author and the degree to which each option can be controlled.

Technique 3.2.8: Alerts for high priority WCAG checkpoints can be included in the default configuration.

Technique 3.2.10: Preference utilities can be designed to allow authors to choose different alert levels based on the priority of accessibility practices.

	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@@] which accessibility standards they wish to follow, and where applicable, to which level, the degree to which the prompts are highlighted in the interface, the nature of the accessibility guidance they wish to receive, and the nature and timing of any automated accessibility features (e.g. accessibility checking or correcting utilities).
	Example 3.1.1(a): This illustration shows an accessibility preferences dialog that allows the author to customize the nature of accessibility checking, highlighting and help as well as set the accessibility standards the tool will check against. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]
	Example 3.1.1(b): This illustration shows shows a different preferences layout, in which accessibility checking is just one of the checkers available as the author enters text in a code-level authoring tool. Other checkers are shown for spelling, syntax and usability. (Source: mockup by AUWG)@@added due to BAF comment@@

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)

ATAG Checkpoint 4.1: Ensure that accessible authoring practices are integrated into the workflow of Web Content development. [Priority 2]

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.

Techniques for:
Success Criteria 1: Any mechanism that guides the author in sequencing authoring actions (e.g. design aids, wizards, templates, etc.) must integrate accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation.

@@ 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.
	Example 4.1.1: This illustration shows a wizard (indirect authoring) interface that prompts the author for a few key pieces of information that will then be used to generate a complete page; a gallery page in this case. Since this step of the wizard includes a "Finish" button, this is a suitable place to add the accessibility-related prompts ("label" and "description"). Placing these prompts later in the process would allow the author to bypass them. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]
	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.
	Example 4.1.4: This illustration shows an accessibility checker with some limited short label authoring tips listed beneath the text entry area as well as a button linking to the full documentation. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]
	Technique 4.1.5: A tight coupling between all of the accessibility-related functions leads to a more seamless authoring experience.
	Example 4.1.5(a,b,c): This illustration shows a sequence of steps through a WYSIWYG interface in which prompting, checking, repair and documentation of accessibility issues are all integrated into the process of creating a table. In the first step (Figure 4.1.5(a)), the author has requested that a table be inserted. The tool prompts the author for accessibility information (i.e. caption and summary) at the same time as it prompts for the number of rows and columns, etc. The tool assists the author by filling both fields with known information (i.e. that this is the 3rd table in the document). In the second step (Figure 4.1.5(b)), as the author finishes filling in the top row of cells, the tool has checked the structure of the table and found a lack of header cells. To address this problem, the tool asks whether this "is a row of table headers". If the author answers "Yes", then the tool can make the repair automatically. In the third step (Figure 4.1.5(c)), the author has added a new row to the top of the table and merged two cells in this new top row. The tool again checks the table and asks the author whether this "merged cell is a header for the column headers below it". If the author answers "Yes", then the tool can repair the table structure accordingly. In all three steps, key terms are linked directly to the help documentation. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]

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 3.2.3: Accessibility problems can be detected and immediately highlighted when documents are opened, when an editing or insertion action is completed, or while an author is editing.

Technique 3.2.11: If intrusive warnings are used, a means can be provides for the author to quickly set the warning to unobtrusive to avoid frustration.

	Technique 4.1.Y: Optimize the timing of prompting, checking, and repair functions. Authoring accessible documents should be as efficient as possible. Prompting, should be timed so that accessibility problems are prevented whenever possible and, when not possible, checking and repair should occur when the accessibility problem is easily reversible. Integrated guidance in creating accessible content from the beginning of the workflow will avert the need for more disruptive checking and repair later in the workflow. Timing options include: Immediate Interruption, Negotiated Interruption and Scheduled Interruption. @@we need to remove checking bias by adding prompting examples.@@
	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.
	Example 3.2.2(a): This illustration shows an example of an immediate interruption of the author's workflow. The author must press the "OK" button on the dialog box to continue. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]
	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.
	Example 3.2.2(b): This illustration shows an example of a negotiated interruption. The author is made aware of problems detected automatically by means of a blue squiggly line around or under rendered elements with accessibility problems. The author can still decide to address the problems at a later time. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]
	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. at save
	Example 3.2.2(c): This illustration shows a "Save As" dialog box that is an example of a scheduling mechanism for a scheduled interruption. The author has the option of turning on or off a checking session immediately following the save operation. The author's preference should be retained for the next save operation. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]

ATAG Checkpoint 4.4: Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are naturally integrated into the appearance and interactive style of the tool. [Priority 3]

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@@]

Techniques for:
"Success Criteria 1: The user authoring interface for accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation must be @@equivalent@@ to the user authoring interface for comparable functions in terms of the following characteristics: [1] visual design (measured by design metaphors, artistic sophistication, sizes, fonts, colors), [2] operation (measured by degree of automation, number of actions for activation), [3] configurability (measured by number and types of features), and [4] comprehensiveness (measured by breadth and depth of functionality coverage)."

@@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.@@

	Technique 4.4.1: In some cases, accessibility prompting can be equivalent to prompting for information that is required for proper functioning.
	Example 4.4.1: This illustration shows a dialog box in which the form taken by accessibility prompting, for a text label and a long description, and that taken by prompting for a required src attribute are highly similar. (Source: mockup by AUWG ) [longdesc missing]
	Technique 4.4.2: In some cases, accessibility checking and repair mechanism can be equivalent to a code syntax checking mechanisms or spell checking mechanisms.
	Example 4.4.2(a,b): This illustration compares a syntax checker and an accessibility checker in a code-level authoring tool. (Source: mockup by AUWG ) [longdesc missing]
	Example 4.4.2(c,d): This illustration compares a spell checker and an accessibility checker. (Source: mockup by AUWG ) [longdesc missing]
	Technique 4.4.3: In most cases, accessibility-related documentation can be equivalent to other documentation in the tool.
	Example 4.4.3: This illustration shows how the accessibility documentation for a tool might look within the main documentation feature. (Source: mockup by AUWG) [longdesc missing]
	Technique 4.4.4: Consider providing a common toolkit to aid in designing additional tool functionality modules. This might be used internally or by third party developers to develop accessibility plug-ins with the same look and feel as other parts of the tool.
	Technique 4.4.4: Consider designing accessibility features as integral components of the authoring tool, not components that need to be separately installed or executed.

Technique 3.2.4: CSS classes can be used to indicate accessibility problems enabling the author to easily configure the presentation of errors.

Make checker like spell checker.

Contents | Guideline 1 | Guideline 2 | Guideline 3 | Guideline 4 | References