If the authoring interface does not follow these guidelines, people with disabilities may not be able to author Web content

If some authors can edit or view element and object properties with an authoring tool, then all authors must be able to do the same.

Authors may require a set of display preferences to view and control the document that is different from the display styles that they want to define for the published document (e.g. a particular text-background combination that differs from the published version).

It is often more efficient to navigate and edit via the structure in Web content.

Search functions within the editing views facilitate author navigation of content as it is being authored by allowing the author to move focus quickly to arbitrary points in the content. Including the capability to search within text equivalents of rendered non-text content increases the efficiency of the search function.

Formats with published WCAG techniques documents facilitate the creation of accessible Web content.

Unrecognized markup may include recent technologies that have been added to enhance accessibility and should be preserved during conversions Accessibility information should also be preserved.

Authoring tools that automatically generate content that does not conform to WCAG are a source of accessibility problems.

Pre-authored content, such as templates, images, videos is often included with authoring tools for use by the author. When this content conforms to WCAG, it is more convenient for authors and more easily reused.

Appropriate assistance should increase the likelihood that typical authors will create content that conforms to WCAG. Different tool developers will accomplish this goal in ways that are appropriate to their products, processes, and authors.

Authors may not notice or be able to check for accessibility problems without assistance from the authoring tool.

Assistance by the authoring tool may simplify the task of repairing accessibility problems for some authors, and make it possible for others.

Improperly generated equivalent alternatives can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.

Simplifying the initial production and later reuse of alternative equivalents will encourage authors to use them more frequently. In addition, such an alternative equivalent management system will facilitate meeting the requirements of Checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

This summary will help the author to improve the accessibility status of their work, keep track of problems, and monitor progress.

Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.g. prompts for alternates, code validators, accessibility checkers, etc.) authors may not find or use them.

If accessible authoring is integrated into instruction and guidance offered by the tool (e.g. documentation, help, tutorials, examples, and workflow processes), authors are more likely to follow accessible authoring as a common practice. This reinforces the message of accessibility that is being promoted and facilitates a better understanding of the reasoning behind its use and its consequences.

Authors are also more likely to use features that promote accessibility if they understand when and how to use them.

Authors are most likely to use the first and easiest option for a given authoring task.

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.

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.

A configurable tool is more likely to be adaptable to the work habits of more authors.

1.1 People with disabilities will have varying levels of difficulty authoring Web content if the authoring interface does not follow the applicable software guidelines, .

1.2 Authors with disabilities will have varying levels of difficulty authoring Web content if accessibility barriers exist in the authoring interface especially related to editing element and object properties.

1.3 Authors with certain disabilities will find it impossible to author Web content if there is no way to change how the authoring interface is displayed without causing inadvertent modification of the display styles for the content being authored.

1.4 Authors with certain disabilities will find it difficult to author Web content if the average number of keystrokes required for authoring is not reduced by allowing navigation and editing via the structure of the content being authored.

1.5 Authors with certain disabilities will find it difficult to author Web content if a search function is not available to reduce the average number of keystrokes required to locate positions within all Web content, including text equivalents.

2.1 A published WCAG techniques documents for a format is a pre-requisite for all of the accessibility supports that make use of a knowledge of the accessible authoring practices within the techniques document to help authors to create Web content that conforms to WCAG.

2.2 Some unrecognized markup may, in fact, be accessibility enhancements that follow specifications or best practices developed since the release of the authoring tool. Accessibility information is, by definition, important to the accessibility of Web content.

2.3 Automatically generating content that does not conform to WCAG introduces accessibility problems over which the author has little or no control.

2.4 An author using pre-authored content (e.g. templates, images, and videos) that does not conform to WCAG introduces accessibility problems over which they have little or no control. In contrast, when pre-authored content conforms to WCAG, accessible authoring practices and accessibility information are convenient for authors to use and reuse.

3.1 Accessibility prompting informs authors that additional information is required to make Web content accessible. Accessibility assistance helps reduce the need for accessibility prompting or expedite any prompting that is necessary.

3.2 Assistance with checking for accessibility problems increases the speed and accuracy with which these are identified.

3.3 Assistance with repairing accessibility problems increases the speed and accuracy with which this operation is performed.

3.4 Equivalent alternatives that have been generated improperly often create accessibility problems and interfere with subsequent accessibility checking.

3.5 An alternative equivalent management system simplifies the initial production and later reuse of alternative equivalents and encourages authors to use them more frequently. This system facilitates meeting the requirements of Checkpoints 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

3.6 Proving a summary of the accessibility status of Web content as it is authored helps authors to improve identify, track and address accessibility problems.

3.7 Documenting all of the features that support the production of accessible Web content is required for the benefit of those authors who frequently make use of help systems as part of their work style.

3.8 Modeling accessible authoring practices in the documentation and help of an authoring tool reinforces to authors that accessible authoring is a standard practice in the production of Web content using that authoring tool.

3.9 Tutorials allow authors to learn about how accessibility features can best be used in conjunction with the rest of the authoring tool workflow.

4.1 Some authoring tasks (e.g. setting text color) have multiple lower level implementations (e.g. style sheets, presentation markup) that differ in terms of conformance to WCAG. Since authors are most likely to use the first option they encounter for performing a particular authoring task it is important that that first option correspond to the more accessible implementation of the task.

4.2 Accessibility features are more likely to be used by authors if the feature are turned on by default and the controls for activating them are readily available.

4.3 @@Still under construction@@

4.4 Accessibility features that are configurable are more adaptable to the work habits of more authors and run less of a risk of being ignored or turned off.