@@JR: General Comments:

• “Implementation notes” sections might be best moved to the top of the techs 3 doc.
• Review required for “STRONGLY SUGGESTED” items - maybe replace the actual words with an icon (with alt=”This technique is strongly suggested”)
• Bring in Checkpoint rationales?
• LONGDESCS for all images!!!
• All exec summaries need grammar and style checks.
• Voice of techs must be standardized

Introduction to Guideline 3:

Actions may be taken at the author's initiative that may result in accessibility problems. The authoring tool should include features that provide support and guidance to the author in these situations, so that accessible authoring practices can be followed and accessible web content can be produced.

This support includes prompting and assisting the author to create accessible web content (Checkpoint 3.1), especially for information that cannot be generated automatically, checking for accessibility problems (Checkpoint 3.2), and assisting in the repair of accessibility problems (Checkpoint 3.3). In performing these functions, the authoring tool must avoid including automatically generated equivalent alternatives or previously authored equivalent alternatives without author consent (Checkpoint 3.4). The authoring tool may also provide automated means for managing equivalent alternatives (Checkpoint 3.5) and provide accessibility status summaries (Checkpoint 3.6).

Accessibility-related documentation provides support and guidance to the author. The documentation must accommodate the various levels of author familiarity with web content accessibility issues. The checkpoint requirements include documenting accessible content promoting features (Checkpoint 3.7), and ensuring that documentation demonstrates authoring practices (Checkpoint 3.8) and workflow processes that result in accessible content (Checkpoint 3.9).

Checkpoints in Guideline 3:

• Techniques for checkpoint 3.1: Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to WCAG. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.2: Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.3: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.4: Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.5: Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents. [Priority 3]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.6: Provide the author with a summary of accessibility status. [Priority 3]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.7: Document all features of the tool that support the production of accessible content. [Priority 2]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.8: Ensure that accessibility is modeled in all documentation and help, including examples. [Priority 3]
• Techniques for checkpoint 3.9: Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible authoring. [Priority 3]

Notes:

• These techniques are informative (non-normative). 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. 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 the term "STRONGLY SUGGESTED".
• For purposes of clarity, the techniques are phrased using a imperative voice. Nevertheless, the techniques remain informative (non-normative).

ATAG Checkpoint 3.1: Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to WCAG. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

@@JR: rationale out of date

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

@@JR: Exec summary of techs needs some rewriting

Executive Summary of Techniques:

In some authoring situations it may be necessary to prompt (e.g. task automation, entry storage, etc.) authors to follow accessible authoring practices. This is especially true of accessibility problems that require human judgment to remedy, such as adding descriptions to images. In general, it is preferable to begin guiding the author towards the production of accessible content before accessibility problems have actually been introduced. Postponing checking (checkpoint 3.2) and correcting (checkpoint 3.3) may leave the author uninformed of accessibility problems for so long that when the author is finally informed, the full weight of the accumulated problems may be overwhelming.

When information is required of the author, it is crucial that that information be correct and complete. This is most likely to occur if the author has been convinced to provide the information voluntarily. Therefore, overly restrictive mechanisms are not recommended for meeting this checkpoint.

@@JR: Success criteria has changed-requires change to org of techs

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: When the actions of the author risk creating Web content that is not accessible (i.e. fails to meet the Web content checkpoints requirements to Level 1, 2, or 3) (e.g. image inserted, author typing invalid element into a code view, author initiating a page creation wizard, etc.), the tool must introduce the appropriate accessible authoring practice.

Technique 3.1.1: Use an appropriate prompting and assisting mechanism

3.1.1(1): Prompting and assisting for short text labels (e.g. alternate text, titles, short text metadata fields, rubies for ideograms):

• (a) Prompts for short text strings may be afforded relatively little screen real estate because they are usually intended to elicit entries of ten words or less.
• (b) Provide a rendered view of the object for the author to examine while composing the label.
• (c) Implement automated routines to detect and offer labels for objects serving special functions (e.g. "decorative", "button", "spacer", "horizontal rule", etc.).
• (d) Use editable text entry boxes with drop-down lists to accommodate new text entry as well as the option to select from reusable or special function label text (see Example 3.1.1(1a)).
• (e) In code-based tools, prompt the author with short text labels combined with the appropriate markup (see Example 3.1.1(1b)).

Example 3.1.1(1a): This illustration shows an authoring interface for description reuse. It is comprised of a drop-down list that is shown with several short labels for the same image. Notice that one of the labels in the list is in a different language (i.e. French). The author must be able to create a new label, if the stored strings are not appropriate. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Example 3.1.1(1b): This illustration shows a code-based authoring interface for short text label prompting. The drop-down menu was triggered when the author typed quotation marks (") to close the href attribute. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(2): Prompting and assisting for multiple text labels (e.g. image map area labels):

• (a) Prompts for image map text labels may be similar to those for short text labels with allowance made for rapidly adding several labels for one image map. (see Example 3.1.1(2))
• (b) Provide a preview of the image map areas.
• (c) Provide the URI of image map areas.
• (d) Offer to automatically generate a set of plain text links from the labels.

Example 3.1.1(2): This illustration shows an authoring interface for image map area text label prompting. It is comprised of a list with two columns. In the right-hand column is the URL for each image map area. This can be used as a hint by the author as they fill in the text labels (left-hand column). A checkbox at the bottom provides the option of using the text labels to create a set of text links below the image map. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(3): Prompting and assisting for long text descriptions (e.g. longdesc text, table summaries, site information, long text metadata fields):

• (a) Begin by prompting the author about whether the inserted object is adequately described with an existing short text label. Providing a "no images" view of the page may help the author decide. (see Example 3.1.1(3))
• (b) If the short description is inadequate, prompt the author for the location of a pre-existing description.
• (c) If the author needs to create a description, provide a special writing utility that includes a rendered view of the object and description writing advice.
• (d) Implement automated routines that detect and ignore some objects that do not require long text descriptions (e.g. bullets, spacers, horizontal rules).

Example 3.1.1(3): This illustration shows an authoring interface for long text description prompting. A "description required" checkbox controls whether the rest of the interface is available. If a description is required, the author then has the choice of opening an existing description file or writing (and saving) a new one. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(4): Prompting and assisting for form field labels:

• (a) Present the form fields and ask the author to select text that is serving as a label or to enter a new label. (see Example 3.1.1(4))
• (b) Alert authors to form fields that are missing labels.

Example 3.1.1(4): This illustration shows a form properties list that allows the author to simultaneously decide the field labels, tab order, form field place holders, and accesskeys. In this example, two form field labels are missing, causing prompts to be displayed. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

@@JR: links should be included for sub-techs that read “Prompts for form field place-holders may be similar to those for X”

3.1.1(5): Prompting and assisting for form field place-holders:

• (a) Prompts for form field place-holders may be similar to those for short text labels.
• (b) Provide authors with the option of directly selecting nearby text strings that are serving implicitly as labels.

3.1.1(6): Prompting and assisting for TAB order sequence:

• (a) Provide the author with a numbering tool that they can use to select controls to create a TAB preferred sequence. (See Example 3.1.1(6))
• (b) Where there are only a few links that change in each page of a collection, ask the author to confirm whether these links receive focus first. If so, then the tool can appropriately update the tabindex order.
• (c) Provide a list of links and controls to check the TAB order.

Example 3.1.1(6): This illustration two views of a "Set TAB Order" utility that lets the author visualize and adjust the TAB order of a document: as a mouse-driven graphical overlay on the screen and as a keyboard accessible list.
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(7): Prompting and assisting for navigational shortcuts (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, skip links, voice commands, etc.):

• (a) Prompt authors to add skip over navigation links for sets of common navigation links. (see Example 3.1.1(7a))
• (b) Prompt authors with a list of links that are candidates for accesskeys because they are common to a number of pages in a site.
• (c) Manage accesskey lists to ensure consistency across sites and to prevent conflicts within pages.(See Example 3.1.1(7b))

Example 3.1.1(7a): This illustration shows a mechanism that detects repeating navigation elements and asks the author whether they want to add a skip navigation link (Source: mockup by AUWG)

Example 3.1.1(7b): This illustration shows a code-based authoring interface suggesting accesskey values. Notice that the system suggests "m" because it is the first letter of the link text ("moon"). The letter "c" does not appear in the list because it is already used as an accesskey later in the document (for the link "camera"). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(8): Prompting and assisting for contrasting colors:

• (a) Assemble color palettes with insufficiently contrasting colors excluded (see Example 3.1.1(8)) or identified.
• (b) Provide gray scale and black and white views or suggest the author activate the system operating system high contrast mode.
• (c) Emphasize Web-safe colors.

@@JR: add link to algorithm?

Example 3.1.1(8): This illustration shows an authoring interface for choosing a text color. The palette has been pre-screened so that sufficient contrast between the text and the current background color is assured. Color codes entered manually are also screened. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(9): Prompting and assisting for alternative resources for multimedia (transcripts, captions, video transcripts, audio descriptions, signed translations, still images, etc.):

• (a) Prompt the author for the location of a pre-existing alternative resources for multimedia (see Example 3.1.1(9)).
• (b) Although producing alternative resource for multimedia can be a complex process for long media files, production suites do exist or authoring tools can include simple utilities, with built-in media players, for producing simple alternative resources.
• (c) The tool should be able to access alternative resources for multimedia, which may be incorporated into existing media or exist separately.

Example 3.1.1(9): This illustration shows an authoring interface for embedding a video. The tool automatically detects whether captions, video transcript, audio descriptions, signed translations and a still image are available for the video. When an item is not found, the author has the option to locate the material or launch an authoring utility. (Source: mockup by AUWG)

@@JR: Graphics sloppy - fix this.
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(10): Prompting and assisting for Metadata:

@@JR: refs missing, links missing

• (a) For metadata information fields requiring information similar to that discussed in the other sections of this technique, see the relevant section. For example: short text labels (3.1.1(1)), long text descriptions (3.1.1(3)), and alternative resources for multimedia(3.1.1(9)).
• (b) When prompting for terms in a controlled vocabulary, allow the author to choose from lists to prevent spelling errors.
• (c) Provide the option of automating the insertion of information that easily stored and reused (e.g. author name, author organization, date, etc.).
• (d) Automate metadata discovery where possible.
• (e) Provide the option of storing licensing conditions within metadata. (See, for example, the Creative Commons licenses [CREATIVE-COMMONS], or the GPL [GPL], LGPL [LGPL], BSD [BSD], and other software licenses)
• (f) Publish accessibility status of content as EARL [EARL] to facilitate correction by third party repair tools.
• (g) Consider characterizing accessibility of content using IMS AccessForAll Meta-data Specification [IMS-ACCMD]<http://www.imsproject.org/accessibility/index.cfm#version1pd> to facilitate personalized content delivery.
• (h) Consult the following references: ???

3.1.1(11): Prompting and assisting for document structure:

@@JR: Explain reason for right window

• Alert the author to the occurrence of unstructured content in a way that is appropriate to the workflow of the tool. (see Checkpoint 4.3).
• Provide the author with options for creating new content that is structured, such as:
  • templates (with pre-defined structure),
  • wizards (that introduce structure to content through a series of system-generated queries), or
  • real time validators (that may be set by the author to prevent the creation of improperly structured content)
• Provide the author with options for imposing structure on existing unstructured content.
  • For tools that support explicit structural mechanisms offer authors the opportunity to use those mechanisms. For example, for DTD or schema based structures, provide validation in accordance to the applicable DTD or schema.
  • For tools that do not support explicit structural mechanisms, offer authors the option of deriving structure from format styles. For example, provide authors a mechanism to map presentation markup that follows formatting conventions into structural elements. For example, patterns of text formatting may be interpreted as headings (see Example 3.1.1(11)) and multiple lines of text beginning items with certain typographical symbols, such as "*" or "-", may be interpreted as list items.
• Provide structure-based editing features, such as:
  • hide/show content blocks according to structure,
  • shift content blocks up, down, and sideways through the document structure, or
  • hierarchical representation or network diagram view of the document structure, as appropriate.
• Provide fully automated checking (validation) for structure.
• Provide fully automated or semi-automated repair for structure.
• It is not necessary to prohibit editing in an unstructured mode. However, the tool should alert authors to the fact that they are working in an unstructured mode.

Example 3.1.1(11): This illustration shows a tool that detects opportunities for enhancing structure and alerts the author. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(12): Prompting and assisting for tabular structure:

• (a) Prompt the author to identify tables as used for layout or data or implement automated detection mechanisms.
• (b) Differentiate utilities for table structure from utilities for document layout - use this when tables are identified as being for layout. [STRONGLY SUGGESTED]
• (c) Prompt the author to provide header information.(see Example 3.1.1(12))
• (d) Prompt the author to group and split columns, rows, or blocks of cells that are related.
• (e) Provide the author with a linearized view of tables (as tablin does).

Example 3.1.1(12): This illustration shows a tool that prompts the author about whether the top row of a table is a row of table headers. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(13): Prompting and assisting for style sheets:

• (a) Use style sheets, according to specification, as the default mechanism for presentation formatting and layout.
• (b) If content is created with a style sheet format, along with a content format, the use of that style format must also meet the requirements of WCAG. [STRONGLY SUGGESTED]
• (c) Conceal the technical details of style sheet usage to a similar degree as for usage of other markup formats supported by the tool.
• (d) Assist the author by detecting structural markup> (e.g. header tags, etc.) that has been misused to achieve presentation formatting and, with author permission, transforming it to use style sheets. See also 3.1.1(11) for information on transforming misused style sheets into structural markup. (see Example 3.1.1(13a))
• (e) Prompt the author to create style classes and rules within and across document, rather than using more limited in-line styling.
• (f) Assist the author by recognizing patterns in style sheet use and converting them into style classes and rules.
• (g) Provide the option of editing text content independently of style sheet layout and presentation formatting.
• (h) Assist the author with the issue of style sheet browser compatibility by guiding them towards standard practices and detecting the existence of non-standard practices.
• (i) Assist the author by providing a style sheet validation function.
• (j) Maintain a registry of styles for ease of re-use.
• (k) For prompting and assisting with specific types of information required by style sheets, see the other sections in this technique. For example: font/background colors (3.1.1(8)) and document structure (3.1.1(12)).
• (l) Consult the following references: Accessibility Features of CSS [CSS Access], CSS2.1 specification [CSS21], and XML Accessibility Guidelines [XML Access].

Example 3.1.1(13a): This illustration shows a prompt that indicates that a heading has been misused to indicate emphasis. Use of style sheets is suggested instead and a list of styles already used in the document is provided. (Source: mockup by AUWG)

3.1.1(14): Prompting and assisting for clearly written text:

• (a) Prompt the author to specify a default language of a document.
• (b) Provide a thesaurus function.
• (c) Provide a dictionary lookup system that can recognize changes of language, terms outside a controlled vocabulary as well as known abbreviation or acronym expansions.
• (d) Provide an automated reading level status. (see Example 3.1.1(14a))
• (e) Prompt the author for expansions of unknown acronyms, recognizable in some languages as collections of uppercase letters. (see Example 3.1.1(14b))

Example 3.1.1(14a): This illustration shows an authoring interface that indicates the reading level of a page and whether it exceeds a limit determined by the author's preference settings. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Example 3.1.1(14b): This illustration shows an authoring interface that prompts the author to enter an acronym expansion. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(15): Prompting and assisting for device independent handlers:

@@JR: add links

• (a) During code development, prompt the author to include device-independent means of activation.
• (b) Prompt authors to use device-independent events (e.g., DOM 2 onactivate [DOM]) instead of device-specific events (e.g., onclick), or route multiple events (onclick and onkeypress) through the same functions.
• (c) Prompt authors to add a DOM onfocus event to elements that are targeted with the onmouseover event.
• (d) Prompt authors about using events for which no common device-independent analogue exists (e.g. ondblclick) and avoid these events as default options.

3.1.1(16): Prompting and assisting for non-text supplements to text:

• (a) Prompt the author to provide icons for buttons, illustrations for text, graphs for numeric comparisons, etc. (see Example 3.1.1(16))
• (b) Where subject metadata is available, look up appropriate illustrations.
• (c) If the author has identified content as instructions then provide templates or automated utilities for extracting flow charts, etc.

Example 3.1.1(16): This illustration shows an authoring interface for prompting the author about whether a paragraph that contains many numbers might be made more clear with the addition of a chart or graph. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3.1.1(17): Prompting and assisting the author to make use of up to date formats:

• (a) Default to the most up to date formats available whenever the author has not specified a format.
• (b) Give up to date formats a higher prominence during format selection.
• (c) Provide tools that convert content in older formats into more up to date formats.
• (d) Fully or partially automate some of the more complex aspects of more up to date formats, including document structure (see 3.1.1(11)) and use of style sheets (see 3.1.1(13)).

@@JR: move to start and style as a note

Note: The preceding list is meant to cover techniques of prompting and assisting for many, but not all, of the most common accessible authoring practices.

@@JR: “Where applicable” should be replaced e.g. Where more than one author is using an authoring system…

Technique 3.1.2: Check all textual entries for spelling, grammar, and reading level (where applicable).

Technique 3.1.3: Share non-text equivalents between authors (where applicable).

Technique 3.1.4: Provide multiple preview modes and a warning to authors that there are many other less predictable ways in which a page may be presented (aurally, text-only, text with pictures separately, on a small screen, on a large screen, etc.). Some possible document views include:

• an alternative content view (with images and other multimedia replace by any alternative content)
• a monochrome view (to test contrast)
• a collapsible structure-only view
• no scripts view
• no frames view
• no style sheet view

Example 3.1.2: This illustration shows a WYSIWYG authoring interface with a list of rendering options displayed. The options include "All" (i.e. render as in a generic browser), "text-only" (i.e. non-text items replaced by textual equivalents), "no styles", "no frames", and "grayscale" (used to check for sufficient contrast). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

ATAG Checkpoint 3.2: Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

@@JR; exec summary grammar

Executive Summary:

Despite prompting assistance from the tool (see Checkpoint 3.1), accessibility problems may still be introduced. For example, the author may cause accessibility problems by hand coding or by opening content with existing accessibility problems for editing. In these cases, the prompting and assistance mechanisms that operate when markup is added or edited (i.e. insertion dialogs and property windows) must be backed up by a more general checking system that can detect and alert the author to problems anywhere within the content (e.g. attribute, element, programmatic object, etc.). It is preferable that this checking mechanisms be well integrated with correction mechanisms (see Checkpoint 3.3), so that when the checking system detects a problem and informs the author, the tool immediately offer assistance to the author.

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The authoring tool must always provide a check (automated check, semi-automated check or manual check) for each applicable requirement to conform to WCAG.

Technique 3.2.1: Automate as much checking as possible. Where necessary provide semi-automated checking. Where neither of these options is reliable, provide manual checking.

(a) Automated: In automated checking, the tool is able to check for accessibility problems automatically, with no human intervention required. This type of check is usually appropriate for checks of a syntactic nature, such as the use of deprecated elements or a missing attribute, in which the meaning of text or images does not play a role.

Example 3.2.1(a): This illustration shows a summary interface for a code-based authoring tool that displays the results of an automated check. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Example 3.2.1(b): This illustration shows an interface that displays the results of an automated check in a WYSIWYG authoring view using blue squiggly highlighting around or under rendered elements, identifying accessibility problems for the author to correct. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Example 3.2.1(c): This illustration shows an authoring interface of an automated check in a code-level authoring view. In this view, the text of elements with accessibility problems is shown in a blue font, instead of the default black font. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

(b) Semi-Automated: In semi-automated checking, the tool is able to identify potential problems, but still requires human judgment by the author to make a final decision on whether an actual problem exists. Semi-automated checks are usually most appropriate for problems that are semantic in nature, such as descriptions of non-text objects, as opposed to purely syntactic problems, such as missing attributes, that lend themselves more readily to full automation.

Example 3.2.1(d): This illustration shows a dialog box that appears once the tool has detected an image without a description attribute. However, since not all images require description, the author is prompted to make the final decision. The author can confirm the at this is indeed an accessibility problem and move on to the repair stage by choosing "Yes". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

(c) Manual: In manual checking, the tool provides the author with instructions for detecting a problem, but does not automate the task of detecting the problem in any meaningful way. As a result, the author must decide on their own whether or not a problem exists. Manual checks are discouraged because they are prone to human error, especially when the type of problem in question may be easily detected by a more automated utility, such as an element missing a particular attribute.

Example 3.2.1(e): This illustration shows a dialog box that reminds the author to check if there are any words in other languages in the document. The author can move on to the repair stage by pressing "Yes". (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Technique 3.2.2: Consult the Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation and Repair Tools [WAI-ER] Public Working Draft for evaluation and repair algorithms related to WCAG 1.0.

Techniques for Success Criteria 2: The authoring tool must inform the author to any failed check results prior to completion of authoring.

@@JR: succ crit 2 techs needed!!!

ATAG Checkpoint 3.3: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. [Web Content Checkpoints Relative to WCAG]

Executive Summary:

Once a problem has been detected by the author or, preferably by the tool (see Checkpoint 3.2), the tool may assist the author to correct the problem. As with accessibility checking, the extent to which accessibility correction can be automated depends on the nature of the particular problems. Some repairs are easily automated, whereas others that require human judgment may be semi-automated at best.

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The authoring tool must always provide a repair (automated repair, semi-automated repair or manual repair) for each applicable requirement to conform to WCAG.

Technique 3.3.1: Automate as much repairing as possible. Where necessary provide semi-automated repairing. Where neither of these options is reliable, provide manual repairing.

(a) Automated: In automated tools, the tool is able to make repairs automatically, with no author input required. For example, a tool may be capable of automatically adding a document type to the header of a file that lacks this information. In these cases, very little, if any, author notification is required. This type of repair is usually appropriate for corrections of a syntactic or repetitive nature.

Example 3.3.1(a): This illustration shows a sample of an announcement that an automated repair has been completed. An "undo " button is provided in case the author wishes to reverse the operation. In some cases, automated repairs might be completed with no author notification at all. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

(b) Semi-Automated: In semi-automated repairing, the tool can provide some automated assistance to the author in performing corrections, but the author's input is still required before the repair can be complete. For example, the tool may prompt the author for a plain text string, but then be capable of handling all the markup required to add the text string to the content. In other cases, the tool may be able to narrow the choice of repair options, but still rely on the author to make the final selection. This type of repair is usually appropriate for corrections of a semantic nature.

Example 3.3.1(b): This illustration shows a sample of a semi-automated repair in a WYSIWYG editor. The author has right-clicked on an image highlighted by the automated checker system. The author must then decide whether the label text that the tool suggests is appropriate. Whichever option the author chooses, the tool will handle the details of updating the content. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

3. Manual: In manual repairing, the tool provides the author with instructions for making the necessary correction, but does not automate the task in any substantial way. For example, the tool may move the cursor to start of the problem, but since this is not a substantial automation, the repair would still be considered "manual". Manual correction tools leave it up to the author to follow the instructions and make the repair by themselves. This is the most time consuming option for authors and allows the most opportunity for human error.

Example 3.3.1(c): This illustration shows a sample manual repair. The problems have already been detected in the checking step and the selected offending elements in a code view have been highlighted. However, when it comes to repairing the problem, the only assistance that the tool provides is a context sensitive hint. The author is left to make sense of the hint and perform the repair without any automated assistance. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Technique 3.3.2: Implement a special-purpose correcting interface where appropriate. When problems require some human judgment, the simplest solution is often to display the property editing mechanism for the offending element. This has the advantage that the author is already somewhat familiar with the interface. However, this practice suffers from the drawback that it does not necessarily focus the author's attention on the dialog control(s) that are relevant to the required correction. Another option is to display a special-purpose correction utility that includes only the input field(s) for the information currently required. A further advantage of this approach is that additional information and tips that the author may require in order to properly provide the requested information can be easily added. Notice that in the figure, a drop-down edit box has been used for the short text label field. This technique might be used to allow the author to select from text strings used previously for the alt-text of this image (see ATAG Checkpoint 3.5 for more).

Example 3.3.2: This illustration shows a sample of a special-purpose correction interface. The tool supports the author's repair task by providing a description of the problem, a preview (in this case of the image missing a label), tips for performing the repair, possible repair options (archived from previous repairs), and other information (in this case the name of the image file). (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Technique 3.3.3: Checks can be automatically sequenced. In cases where there are likely to be many accessibility problems, it may be useful to implement a checking utility that presents accessibility problems and repair options in a sequential manner. This may take a form similar to a configuration wizard or a spell checker. In the case of a wizard, a complex interaction is broken down into a series of simple sequential steps that the author can complete one at a time. The later steps can then be updated "on-the-fly" to take into account the information provided by the author in earlier steps. A checker is a special case of a wizard in which the number of detected errors determines the number of steps. For example, word processors have checkers that display all the spelling problems one at a time in a standard template with places for the misspelled word, a list of suggested words, and "change to" word. The author also has correcting options, some of which can store responses to affect how the same situation can be handled later. In an accessibility problem checker, sequential prompting is an efficient way of correcting problems. However, because of the wide range of problems the checker needs to handle (i.e. missing text, missing structural information, improper use of color, etc.), the interface template will need to be even more flexible than that of a spell checker. Nevertheless, the template is still likely to include areas for identifying the problem (WYSIWYG or code-based according to the tool), suggesting multiple solutions, and choosing between or creating new solutions. In addition, the dialog may include context-sensitive instructive text to help the author with the current correction.

Example 3.3.3: This illustration shows an example of a sequential accessibility checker, the special-purpose correction interface from Example 3.3.2 is supplemented with navigational controls for moving backwards and forwards through the list of repair tasks. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Technique 3.3.5: Where a tool is able to detect site-wide errors, allow the author to make site-wide corrections. This should not be used for equivalent alternatives when the function is not known with certainty (see ATAG Checkpoint 3.4).

Technique 3.3.6: Provide a mechanism for authors to navigate sequentially among uncorrected accessibility errors. This allows the author to quickly scan accessibility problems in context.

Technique 3.3.7: Consult the Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation and Repair Tools [AERT] Public Working Draft document for evaluation and repair algorithms related to WCAG 1.0.

Techniques for Success Criteria 2: For accessibility problems for which an authoring tool provides only manual repairs, the repair instructions must be directly linked from the corresponding check.

@@JR: succ crit 2 techs needed!!!

ATAG Checkpoint 3.4: Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]

@@JR: get new wording from GL

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: When the author inserts an unrecognized non-text object (the recognition criteria is left unspecified), the tool must not insert an automatically generated text equivalent (e.g. label generated from the file name).

Technique 3.4.1: If the author has not specified an alternative equivalent, default to leaving out the relevant content (e.g. attribute, element, etc.), rather than including the attribute with no value or with automatically-generated content. Leaving out the attribute will increase the probability that the problem will be detected by checking algorithms. [STRONGLY SUGGESTED]

Techniques for Success Criteria 2: When the author inserts a non-text object for which the tool has a previously authored equivalent alternatives (i.e. created by the author, tool designer, pre-authored content developer, etc.), but the function of the object is not known with certainty, the tool must prompt the author to confirm insertion of the equivalent. However, where the function of the non-text object is known with certainty (e.g. "home button" on a navigation bar, etc.), the tool may automatically insert the equivalent.

Technique 3.4.2: If human-authored equivalent alternatives are available for an object (for example, through management functionality (ATAG checkpoint 3.5) and/or equivalent alternatives bundled with pre-authored content (ATAG checkpoint 2.6), then the equivalent alternatives can be used in both semi-automated repair processes and automated repair processes as long as the function of the object is known with certainty. The function of an instance of an object can be considered to be known with certainty when:

• the tool totally controls its use (i.e. a generated tool bar), or
• the author has linked the current object instance to the same URI(s) as the object was linked to when the equivalent alternative was stored, or
• there is semantic role information stored for the object.

Technique 3.4.3: Allow the author to store semantic role information for instances of objects.

Technique 3.4.4: If human-authored equivalent alternatives are available for an object and that object is used for a function that is not known with certainty, tools may offer the equivalent alternatives to the author as defaults in a semi-automated repair processes, but not not in fully automated repair processes.

Technique 3.4.5: Where an object has already been used in a document, the tool may offer the alternative information that was supplied for the first or most recent use as a default.

Technique 3.4.6: If the author changes the alternative content, the tool may ask the author whether all instances of the object with the same known function should have their alternative content updated with the new value.

ATAG Checkpoint 3.5: Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents. [Priority 3]

@@JR: rem Note, add rationale, Check for cross-over between 3.4 and 3.5

Note: This checkpoint is priority 3 and is, therefore, not required to be implemented in order for a tool to conform to ATAG 2.0 at the single-A and double-AA levels. However, implementing this checkpoint has the potential to simplify the satisfaction of several higher priority checkpoints (ATAG checkpoint 3.1, ATAG checkpoint 3.2, and ATAG checkpoint 3.3) and improve the usability of the tool.

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The authoring tool must always keep a record of alternative equivalents that the author inserts for particular non-text objects in a way that allows the text equivalent to be offered back to the author for modification and re-use if the same non-text object is reused.

Technique 3.5.1: Maintain a registry that associates object identity information with alternative information (this could be done with the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF10]). Whenever an object is used and an equivalent alternative is collected (see ATAG Checkpoint 3.1) the object (or identifying information) and the alternative information can be added to the registry. In the case of an equivalent alternative, the alternate information can be stored in the document source. For more substantial information (such as video captions or audio descriptions), the information can be stored externally and linked from the document source. Several different versions of alternative information can be associated with a single object.

Example 3.5.1: This illustration shows a text equivalents registry viewer that a tool can include to allow the author to query and edit the various text equivalents stored in the registry. For maximum flexibility, the design takes into account multiple non-text objects of the same name, multiple types of text equivalents for each non-text object, and multiple versions of each text equivalent type. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Technique 3.5.2: Present stored alternative information to the author as default text in the appropriate field, whenever one of the associated files is inserted into the author's document. This satisfies ATAG Checkpoint 3.4 because the equivalent alternatives are not automatically generated and they are only reused with author confirmation.

Technique 3.5.3: If no stored association is found in the registry, leave the field empty.

Technique 3.5.4: The stored alternative information required for pre-authored content (see ATAG Checkpoint 2.6) may be part of the management system, allowing the alternative equivalents to be retrieved whenever the pre-authored content is inserted.

Technique 3.5.5: Tools may allow authors to make keyword searches of a description database (to simplify the task of finding relevant images, sound files, etc.). A paper describing a method to create searchable databases for video and audio files is available (refer to [SEARCHABLE]).

ATAG Checkpoint 3.6: Provide the author with a summary of accessibility status. [Priority 3]

@@JR: could use more detail, may need an example

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: The authoring tool must provide an option to view a list of all known accessibility problems (i.e. detected by automated check or identified by the author as part of a semi-automated or manual check) prior to completion of authoring.

Technique 3.6.1: Provide a list of all accessibility errors found in the content (e.g. selection, document, site, etc.).

@@JR: expand next tech

Technique 3.6.2: Provide a summary of accessibility problems remaining by type and/or by number.

Technique 3.6.3: Store accessibility status information in an interoperable form using Evaluation and Repair Language [WAI-ER].

ATAG Checkpoint 3.7: Document all features of the tool that support the production of accessible content. [Priority 2]

@@JR: Moredetail needed in techs

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: All features that play a role in creating accessible content must be documented in the help system.

Technique 3.7.1: Ensure that the help system can answer the following questions: "What features of the tool encourage the production of accessible content?" and "How are these features operated?".

Technique 3.7.2: Provide direct links to context sensitive help on how to operate the features.

ATAG Checkpoint 3.8: Ensure that accessibility is modeled in all documentation and help, including examples. [Priority 3]

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: All examples of markup and screenshots of the authoring interface that appear in the documentation and help must model accessible Web content.

Technique 3.8.1: Include relevant accessible authoring practices in examples. [STRONGLY SUGGESTED]

Example 3.8.1: This illustration shows documentation for the input element in this code-level authoring tool makes use of the label element in order to reinforce the routine nature of the pairing. (Source: mockup by AUWG)
[longdesc missing]

Technique 3.8.2: In the documentation, ensure that all code examples pass the tool's own accessibility checking mechanism (see Checkpoint 3.1).

Technique 3.8.3: In the documentation, provide at least one model of each accessibility practice in the relevant WCAG techniques document for each language supported by the tool. Include all levels of accessibility practices.

Technique 3.8.4: Plug-ins that update accessibility features of a tool, should also update the documentation examples.

Technique 3.8.5: Implement context-sensitive help for accessibility terms as well as tasks related to accessibility.

Technique 3.8.6: Provide a tutorial on checking for and correcting accessibility problems.

Technique 3.8.7: Include pointers to more information on accessible Web authoring, such as WCAG and other accessibility-related resources.

Technique 3.8.8: Include current versions of, or links to, relevant language specifications in the documentation. This is particularly relevant for languages that are easily hand-edited, such as most XML languages.

Technique 3.8.9: Provide links from within the accessibility related documentation to launch the relevant accessibility features.

ATAG Checkpoint 3.9: Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible authoring. [Priority 3]

@@JR: More detail needed, maybe an example as well

Techniques for Success Criteria 1: A tutorial on accessible authoring for that authoring tool must be provided.

Technique 3.9.1: Document the sequence of steps that the author should take, using the tool, in order to increase the likelihood of producing accessible content. This should take account of any idiosyncrasies of the tool.

Technique 3.9.2: Explain the importance of accessibility for a wide range of content consumers, from those with disabilities to those with alternative viewers. Consider emphasizing points in "Auxiliary Benefits of Accessibility Features", a W3C-WAI resource.

Technique 3.9.3: Avoid referring to accessibility features as being exclusively for particular groups (e.g. "for blind authors").

Technique 3.9.4: In addition to including accessibility information throughout the documentation, provide a dedicated accessibility section.

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