W3C

(Draft) ATAG 2.0 Implementation Report

21 March 2013

Important Notes:

Numbers of Implementations

Guidelines and Success Criteria

Under each guideline there are success criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1.0. Each success criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when a specific authoring tool is tested against it.

All ATAG 2.0 success criteria are written to be testable. While some can be tested by software, others require human testers for part or all of the test.

For more information, see the ATAG 2.0 Conformance section.

PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
PRINCIPLE A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline A.1.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.1.1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG):

If the authoring tool contains web-based user interfaces, then those web-based user interfaces meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Level A: @Several

Other possible tools:

Yes
  • Mostly
  • 1.1.1(A): Y
  • 1.2.1(A): Y-Not used
  • 1.2.2(A): Y-Not used
  • 1.2.3(A): Y-Not used
  • 1.3.1(A): Y
  • 1.3.2(A): Y
  • 1.3.3(A):Y
  • 1.4.1(A):Y
  • 1.4.2(A): Y-Not used
  • 2.1.1(A): N due 3rd party Spell Checker (note: alt+F10 is a vital keystroke)
  • 2.1.2(A):Y
  • 2.2.1(A): Y-Not used
  • 2.2.2(A):Y-Not used
  • 2.3.1(A): Y
  • 2.3.2(A): Y
  • 2.4.1(A): Y (esp. in button bars)
  • 2.4.2(A): NA
  • 2.4.3(A): Y
  • 2.4.4(A): Y
  • 3.1.1(A): Y
  • 3.2.1(A): Y
  • 3.2.2(A): Y
  • 3.3.1(A): Y-Not used
  • 3.3.2(A): Y
  • 4.1.1(A):Y
  • 4.1.2(A): Y
 Yes (TinyMCE plus own UI) Yes (TinyMCE plus own UI)   N/A (not Web-based) N/A (not Web-based) N/A (not Web-based)    
Level AA: @At-least-one Yes
  • Mostly (due to 2.1.1 above)
  • 1.2.4(AA): Y-Not used
  • 1.2.5(AA): Y-Not used
  • 1.4.3(AA):Y
  • 1.4.4(AA):Y
  • 1.4.5(AA):Y
  • 2.4.5(AA): NA
  • 2.4.6(AA): Y
  • 2.4.7(AA): Y
  • 3.1.2(AA): Y
  • 3.2.3(AA): Y
  • 3.2.4(AA): Y
  • 3.3.3(AA): Y-Not used
  • 3.3.4(AA): Y-Not used
 Yes (TinyMCE plus own UI) Yes (couple error messages to improve, but almost there assuming that TinyMCE passes)   N/A (not Web-based) N/A (not Web-based) N/A (not Web-based)    
Level AAA:@None-confirmed
  • Somewhat

No

  • 1.2.6(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 1.2.7(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 1.2.8(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 1.2.9(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 1.4.6(AAA): Y
  • 1.4.7(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 1.4.8(AAA): @@@
  • 1.4.9(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 2.1.3(AAA)::Y
  • 2.2.3(AAA): Y
  • 2.2.4(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 2.2.5(AAA): Y-Not used
  • 2.4.8(AAA): NA
  • 2.4.9(AAA): Y
  • 2.4.10(AAA): NA
  • 3.1.3(AAA): @@@
  • 3.1.4(AAA): @@@
  • 3.1.5(AAA): @@@
  • 3.1.6(AAA): @@@
  • 3.2.5(AAA): Y
  • 3.3.5(AAA): N
  • 3.3.6(AAA):Y
 No     N/A (not Web-based) N/A (not Web-based) N/A (not Web-based)    
Guideline A.1.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that non-web-based functionality is accessible. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.1.2.1 Accessibility Guidelines:

If the authoring tool contains non-web-based user interfaces, then those non-web-based user interfaces follow user interface accessibility guidelines for the platform. (Level A) 		@At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1iPhone apps? Annotate (Steve H)? MS2010?
 N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based)          

A.1.2.2 Platform Accessibility Services:

If the authoring tool contains non-web-based user interfaces, then those non-web-based user interfaces expose accessibility information through platform accessibility services. (Level A) 		@At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1 (MSAA support) iPhone apps? Annotate (Steve H)? MS2010?
 N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based) N/A (fully web-based)          
PRINCIPLE A.2: Editing-views must be perceivable Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline A.2.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Make alternative content available to authors. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.2.1.1 Text Alternatives for Rendered Non-Text Content:

If an editing-view renders non-text content, then any programmatically associated text alternatives for the non-text content can be programmatically determined. (Level A)

 @Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@ XStandard2.1
 Yes (via browser) Yes (via browser) Yes (TinyMCE) Yes (via browser)   Yes (via browser)        

A.2.1.2 Alternatives for Rendered Time-Based Media:

If an editing-view renders time-based media, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

  • (a) Option to Render: The authoring tool provides the option to render alternatives for the time-based media; or
  • (b) User Agent Option: Authors have the option to preview the time-based media in a user agent that is able to render the alternatives.

@Several

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes. Video can be embedded and displayed via the user agent option (b). Yes. Video can be embedded manually and displayed via the user agent option (b). Yes (TinyMCE)              
Guideline A.2.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Editing-view presentation can be programmatically determined. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Indicators:

If an editing-view adds status indicators to the content being edited, then the status messages being indicated can be programmatically determined. (Level A)

  • Note: Status indicators may indicate errors (e.g., spelling errors), tracked changes, hidden elements, or other information.
 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@WAVE (adds information icons throughout the checked webpage) XMetal? Office2010 spelling?
No. Some placeholders for elements such as anchors are not properly communicated. No. Underlined spelling errors are not communicated. N/A         Spelling errors are communicated via API    

A.2.2.2 Access to Rendered Text Properties:

If an editing-view renders any text formatting properties that authors can also edit using the editing-view, then the properties can be programmatically determined. (Level AA)

 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@MoodleLMS?, DrupalCMS?, ATutorLCMS? (note: Use MSAA Inspect tool to test on Windows)
 Yes (via browser) Yes (via browser) Yes (TinyMCE - via browser)              
PRINCIPLE A.3: Editing-views must be operable Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard access to authoring features. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum):

All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)

  • Note 1: Keyboard interfaces are programmatic services provided by many platforms that allow operation in a device independent manner. This success criterion does not imply the presence of a hardware keyboard.
  • Note 2: The path exception relates to the underlying function, not the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input technique (handwriting) requires path-dependent input, but the underlying function (text input) does not. The path exception encompasses other input variables that are continuously sampled from pointing devices, including pressure, speed, and angle.
  • Note 3: This success criterion does not forbid and should not discourage other input methods (e.g., mouse, touch) in addition to keyboard operation.
 @Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@MS2010? AtutorLCMS? Sakai3.0?
 Yes No. Spell checker has some issues. Yes (TinyMCE + own UI) Yes   Yes        

A.3.1.2 No Keyboard Traps:

If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, authors are advised of the method for moving focus away. (Level A)

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@Flash8 MoodleLMS?, DrupalCMS?, ATutorLCMS?(relying on browser for (b))
 Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE + own UI) Yes   Yes   Yes    

A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access:

The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard access. (Level AA)

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@Flash8?
 Yes Yes (e.g. grouped toolbar buttons) Yes (TinyMCE + own UI)     Yes   Yes    

A.3.1.4 Keyboard Access (Enhanced):

All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes. (Level AAA)

 

 @Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@ DrupalCMS? Fluid tools (Decapod coversion, Collection space)
Yes No. Spell checker has some issues. Yes (TinyMCE + own UI) Yes            

A.3.1.5 Customize Keyboard Access:

If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands, then those keyboard commands can be customized. (Level AAA)

 

 @At-least-one
  • MS2010, Web-based tools customized from browser?
No No No     Yes        

A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands:

If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands,

then the authoring tool provides a way for authors to determine the keyboard commands associated with authoring tool user interface components. (Level AAA)

@Several

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A No. e.g. alt-F10 Yes (but only from accessibility documentation)     Yes (underlines access keys in the menus when "alt" key is pressed)   Yes (when alt is pressed, shortcut keys appear as overlays)    
Guideline A.3.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide authors with enough time. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum):

If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits, then the authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool before the session time limits are reached. (Level A)

 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@ATutorLCMS (Scorm mode?)? DrupalCMS? MoodleLMS? Wikis?
 N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application. N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application. No         N/A. No time limits.    

 

A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable:

If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

  • (a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or
  • (b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or
  • (c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g., "press the space bar"), and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or
  • (d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g., a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or
  • (e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or
  • (f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.
 @None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@ATutorLCMS (Scorm mode?)?DrupalCMS?MoodleLMS? Wikis?
 N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application. N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application. Yes. via (c) extend         N/A. No time limits.    

A.3.2.3 Static Input Components:

If authoring tool user interface components accept input and move, then authors can pause the movement. (Level A)

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@Flash?
 N/A. All UI components are stationary. N/A. All UI components are stationary. N/A. All UI components are stationary.         N/A. All UI components are stationary.    

A.3.2.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended):

The authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool. (Level AAA)

 @Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@Photoshop , Google Docs document editor, Dreamweaver?
 N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application. N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application. No         Yes    
Guideline A.3.3: (For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.3.3.1 Static View Option:

If the authoring tool contains editing-views that render visual time-based content, then those editing-views can be paused and can be set to not play automatically. (Level A)

 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@Flash8 (Timeline only plays on user request), Maybe some web-based tools if rendering of dynamic objects turned off in browser
N/A - does not play the video - just a placeholder. Animated gifs are an exception. No. Flash, video, etc. is not rendered, but animated gifs are. N/A (see TinyMCE)              
Guideline A.3.4: (For the authoring tool user interface) Enhance navigation and editing via content structure. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure:

If editing-views expose the markup elements in the web content being edited, then the markup elements (e.g., source code, content renderings) are selectable and navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection focus between elements. (Level AA)

 @Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@Amaya? (JS)
Yes (using "Path" feature) Yes (using "Path" feature) Yes (TinyMCE)     Yes ("Edit>Select Parent Tag", "Edit>Select Child")   N/A. Markup is not exposed.    

A.3.4.2 Navigate by Programmatic Relationships:

If editing-views allow editing of programmatic relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided that support navigation between the related content. (Level AAA)

  • Note: Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the authoring tool, relationships may include, but are not limited to, element nesting, headings, labeling, programmatic definitions, and ID relationships.

@Several

  • Examples in other tools:@@Eclipse IDE
 No No No              
Guideline A.3.5: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide text search of the content. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.3.5.1 Text Search:

If the authoring tool provides an editing-view of text-based content, then the editing-view enables text search, such that all of the following are true: (Level AA)

  • (a) All Editable Text: Any text content that is editable by the editing-view is searchable (including alternative content); and
  • (b) Match: Matching results can be made visible to authors and given focus; and
  • (c) No Match: Authors are informed when no results are found; and
  • (d) Two-way: The search can be made forwards or backwards.

@Many

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes (via browser's search feature) Yes (via browser's search feature) Yes (TinyMCE via browser's search feature; own UI also includes search capability)     Yes   Yes    
Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage preference settings. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.3.6.1 Independence of Display:

If the authoring tool includes display settings for editing-views, then the authoring tool allows authors to adjust these settings without modifying the web content being edited. (Level A)

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1 GoogleDocs
Yes (since browser display settings are used) Yes (since browser display settings are used) Yes (TinyMCE) Yes (via browser display settings)   Yes        

A.3.6.2 Save Settings:

If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then these settings can be saved between authoring sessions. (Level AA)

 

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
N/A. Only has "Fullscreen" option. N/A. Only has "Maximise" and "Show Blocks" options. Yes (e.g. which view of the TinyMCE editor to use - plain text vs HTML vs WYSIWYG)     Yes   Yes    

A.3.6.3 Apply Platform Settings:

The authoring tool respects changes in platform display and control settings, unless authors select more specific display and control settings using the authoring tool. (Level AA)

 @Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@Dreamweaver (for Mac)? Desire2Learn? SAKAI?
No No. Does not respect default size, color No (TinyMCE) - but rest of system responds to Browser set text size, font Defacto            

A.3.6.4 Multiple Sets:

If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then the authoring tool provides the option of saving and reloading multiple configurations of settings. (Level AAA)

@Several

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A. Would be controlled by the higher level application. N/A. Would be controlled by the higher level application. No     Yes Yes      
Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure that previews are at least as accessible as in-market user agents. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.3.7.1 Preview (Minimum):

If a preview is provided, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

  • (a) In-Market User Agent: The preview renders content using a user agent that is in-market; or
  • (b) UAAG (Level A): The preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Level A [UAAG].
 @Many (by (a))
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1 (by (a)) Amaya? (JS)
Yes (a) Yes (a) Yes (a) Yes (a) Yes (a) Yes (a) Yes (a) Yes (a)    

A.3.7.2 Preview (Enhanced):

If a preview is provided, then authors can specify which user agent performs the preview. (Level AAA)

@Many

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes. Uses same browser as in use. Yes. Uses same browser as in use. Yes (TinyMCE) Yes Yes. Uses same browser as in use. Yes Yes Yes    
PRINCIPLE A.4: Editing-views must be understandable Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline A.4.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Help authors avoid and correct mistakes. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.4.1.1 Content Changes Reversible (Minimum):

All authoring actions are either reversible or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

 

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
Yes Yes Yes. TinyMCE undo. Yes (warns before deleting content)   Yes ("Edit>Undo")   Yes ("Edit>Undo")    

A.4.1.2 Settings Change Confirmation:

If the authoring tool provides mechanisms for changing authoring tool user interface settings, then those mechanisms can reverse the setting changes, or the authoring tool requires author confirmation to proceed. (Level A)

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
N/A. Only has "Fullscreen" option. N/A. Only has "Maximise" and "Show Blocks" options. N/A. No permanent settings.     Yes   Yes    

A.4.1.3 Content Changes Reversible (Enhanced):

Authors can sequentially reverse a series of reversible authoring actions. (Level AAA)

  • Note: It is acceptable to clear the authoring action history at the end of authoring sessions.

@Many

  • Examples in other tools:@@

 

 Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE)     Yes   Yes    
Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility features. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

A.4.2.1 Describe Accessibility Features:

For each authoring tool feature that is used to meet Part A of ATAG 2.0, at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

  • (a) Described in the Documentation: Use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or
  • (b) Described in the Interface: Use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool user interface; or
  • (c) Platform Service: The feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
  • (d) Not Used by Authors: The feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service).
 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes (as pop-ups) Yes. (Ref) Yes     Yes   Yes    

A.4.2.2 Document All Features:

For each authoring tool feature, at least one of the following is true: (Level AA)

  • (a) Described in the Documentation: Use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or
  • (b) Described in the Interface: Use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool user interface; or
  • (c) Platform Service: The feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
  • (d) Not Used by Authors: The feature is not used directly by authors (e.g., passing information to a platform accessibility service).
 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes (but only as pop-ups - b) Yes. (Ref) Yes     Yes   Yes    
PART B: Support the production of accessible content Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
PRINCIPLE B.1: Fully automatic processes must produce accessible content Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline B.1.1: Ensure automatically specified content is accessible. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web content after the end of an authoring session, authors can specify that the content be accessible web content (WCAG). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

  • Note: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content (WCAG).
 Level A:@At-least-one:
  • Examples in other tools:@@ATutorLCMS?
N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. Yes (developer created templates display content listings)            
Level AA:@At-least-one:
  • Examples in other tools:@@ATutorLCMS?
N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. Yes (developer created templates display content listings)            
Level AAA:@At-least-one:
  • Examples in other tools:@@ATutorLCMS?
N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. N/A. Does not auto-generate content after seesions. Yes (developer created templates display content listings)            

B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides the functionality for automatically generating web content during an authoring session, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)
  • (a) Accessible: The content is accessible web content (WCAG) without author input; or
  • (b) Prompting: During the automatic generation process, authors are prompted for any required accessibility information (WCAG); or
  • (c) Automatic Checking: After the automatic generation process, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or
  • (d) Checking Suggested: After the automatic generation process, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.
  • Note 1: Automatic generation includes automatically selecting templates for authors.
  • Note 2: This success criterion applies only to automatic processes specified by the authoring tool developer. It does not apply when author actions prevent generation of accessible web content (WCAG).
 Level A:@At-least-one:
  • Examples in other tools:@@ATutorLCMS? Dreamweaver8?
 Yes No. Issues: Form elements lack labels; Yes Yes (developer created templates display content listings)            
Level AA:@At-least-one:
  • Examples in other tools:@@ATutorLCMS? Dreamweaver8?
 Yes No. Issues: Form elements lack labels; Yes Yes (developer created templates display content listings)            

Level AAA:@At-least-one

  • Examples in other tools:@@

 

 Yes No. Issues: Form elements lack labels; Yes Yes            
Guideline B.1.2: Ensure accessibility information is preserved. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides restructuring transformations or re-coding transformations, and if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

  • (a) Preserve: Accessibility information (WCAG) is preserved in the output; or
  • (b) Warning: Authors have the default option to be warned that accessibility information (WCAG) may be lost (e.g., when saving a vector graphic into a raster image format); or
  • (c) Automatic Checking: After the transformation, accessibility checking is automatically performed; or
  • (d) Checking Suggested: After the transformation, the authoring tool prompts authors to perform accessibility checking.
  • Note 1: For text alternatives for non-text content, see Success Criterion B.1.2.4.
  • Note 2: This success criteria only applies when the output technology is "included" for conformance.

Level A:@Several

  • Examples in other tools:@@examples needed - Jan (in general), Greg (New dreamweaver html5 extension, Adobe Encore?)@@video converters?
 Yes Yes Yes (no export and there are some automatic code repair during paste from browser)              
Level AA:@Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE)              
Level AAA:@Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE)              

B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG):

If the authoring tool supports copy and paste of structured content, then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the copied content is preserved when the authoring tool is both the source and destination of the copy-paste. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

@None-confirmed

  • Examples in other tools:@@
     Yes              

@None-confirmed

  • Examples in other tools:@@
     Yes              

@None-confirmed

  • Examples in other tools:@@
     Yes              

B.1.2.3 Optimizations Preserve Accessibility:

If the authoring tool provides optimizing web content transformations, then any accessibility information (WCAG) in the input is preserved in the output. (Level A).

@At-least-one

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 @@@Cleanup messy code? N/A Yes     Yes. "Apply Source Formatting".        

B.1.2.4 Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved:

If the authoring tool provides web content transformations that preserve non-text content in the output, then any text alternatives for that non-text content are also preserved, if equivalent mechanisms exist in the web content technology of the output. (Level A).

  • Note: This success criteria only applies when the output technology is "included" for conformance.
 @Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@Acrobat (when exporting PDF from MS Word format) Final Cut Pro preserving captions?
N/A Yes Yes (transformations from IEEE LOM to SCORM package etc.)              
PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in producing accessible content Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline B.2.1: Ensure accessible content production is possible. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG):

If the authoring tool places restrictions on the web content that authors can specify, then those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

 Level A:@Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE) Yes   Yes        
Level AA:@Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE) Yes   Yes        
Level AAA:@Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE) Yes   Yes        
Guideline B.2.2: Guide authors to produce accessible content. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG):

If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g., styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

 Level A:@At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@
   Yes. Header options are at least as prominent as styling options. N/A Yes   Yes        

Level AA:@None-confirmed

  • Examples in other tools:@@Opencaps? TinyMCE?
     N/A              
Level AAA:@None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@
   . N/A              

B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides mechanisms to set web content properties (e.g., attribute values), then mechanisms are also provided to set web content properties related to accessibility information (WCAG). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

 Level A:@At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes Yes. E.g. alt text in Image properties, Caption and Summary in Table Properties Yes (TinyMCE)              
Level AA:@None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes . Yes (TinyMCE)              

Level AAA:@None-confirmed

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 Yes   Yes (TinyMCE)              
Guideline B.2.3: Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides functionality for adding non-text content, then authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

 Level A:@Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
 Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE) Yes   Yes   Yes    
Level AA:@Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE) Yes   Yes   Yes    
Level AAA:@Many
  • Examples in other tools:@@XStandard2.1
Yes Yes Yes (TinyMCE) Yes   Yes   Yes    

B.2.3.2 Repair of Text Alternatives During Authoring Sessions:

If the authoring tool attempts to automatically or semi-automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content ("repair strings") during an authoring session, then the following are both true:s: (Level A)

  • (a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
  • (b) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the repair strings prior to insertion in the content.
 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@A-Prompt 1.0
No. "Alternate Text" is the default. Yes. Meets by not making suggestions. Even when images are uploaded to the server for storage. No (TinyMCE)              

B.2.3.3 Repair of Text Alternatives After Authoring Sessions:

If the authoring tool attempts to automatically repair text alternatives for non-text content after an authoring session has ended, then the following are both true. (Level A)

  • (a) No Generic or Irrelevant Strings: Generic strings (e.g. "image") and irrelevant strings (e.g., the file name, file format) are not offered as repair strings; and
  • (b) Author Control: In the subsequent authoring session (if any), auto-generated text alternatives are indicated and authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the text alternatives..
   N/A N/A N/A              

B.2.3.4 Save for Reuse:

 

If the authoring tool provides the functionality for adding non-text content,

when authors enter programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content, then both of the following are true: (Level AAA)
  • (a) Save and Suggest: The text alternatives are automatically saved and suggested by the authoring tool, if the same non-text content is reused; and
  • (b) Edit Option: The author has the option to edit or delete the saved text alternatives.
 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools:@@A-Prompt 1.0
No No No              
Guideline B.2.4: Assist authors with accessible templates. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides templates, then there are accessible template (WCAG) options for a range of template uses. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Level A:@Several

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A @@@ Both templates have issues. N/A Yes   Yes        
Level AA:@None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A   N/A              
Level AAA:@None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A   N/A              

B.2.4.2 Identify Template Accessibility (Minimum):

If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible template (WCAG) options, then the templates are provided such that the template selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options. (Level AA)

  • Note: The distinction can involve providing information for the accessible templates, the non-accessible templates or both.
 @None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A   N/A              

B.2.4.3 Author-Created Templates:

If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and allows authors to create new non-accessible templates (WCAG), then authors can enable the template selection mechanism to display distinctions between accessible and non-accessible templates that they create. (Level AA)

  • Note: The distinction can involve providing information for the accessible templates (WCAG), the non-accessible templates or both.
 @None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A N/A N/A              

B.2.4.4 Identify Template Accessibility (Enhanced):

If the authoring tool provides any non-accessible templates (WCAG) options and does not include a template selection mechanism, then the non-accessible templates include accessibility warnings within the templates. (Level AAA)

 @None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@A-Content (Div. Directorate)? Dreamweaver templates may list some accessible status info? Scholar's portal?
 N/A   N/A              
Guideline B.2.5: Assist authors with accessible pre-authored content. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.2.5.1 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism:

If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true: (Level AA)

  • (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and
  • (b) Prominence: Any accessible (WCAG) options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.

@At-least-one

  • Examples in other tools:@@
 N/A   N/A Yes            

B.2.5.2 Pre-Authored Content Accessibility Status:

If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA)

 @None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools:@@A-Content (Div. Directorate)? Dreamweaver templates may list some accessible status info? Scholar's portal?
 N/A No N/A              
PRINCIPLE B.3: Authors must be supported in improving the accessibility of existing content Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline B.3.1: Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content in such a way that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking for that success criterion is provided (e.g., an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

  • Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems (WCAG). However, manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In manual checking, the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems, which authors must carry out by themselves. For more information on checking, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.
 Level A:@Several
  • Examples in other tools:@@WAVE, Acrobat Accessibility Checker
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes.TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.         Yes    
Level AA:@Several
  • Examples in other tools: @@Acrobat Accessibility Checker, WAVE
 Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes.TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.              
Level AAA:@At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools: @@WebAIM WAVE? Deque? HiSoftware? CommonLook?
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes. TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.              

B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide:

If the authoring tool provides checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem (WCAG) is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), then instructions are provided from the check that describe how to decide. (Level A)

 

 @Several
  • Examples in other tools: @@WAVE, Acrobat Accessibility Checker
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes.TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.         Yes    

B.3.1.3 Help Authors Locate:

If the authoring tool provides checks that require authors to decide whether a potential web content accessibility problem (WCAG) is correctly identified (i.e., manual checking and semi-automated checking), then the relevant content is identified to the authors. (Level A)

  • Note: Depending on the nature of the editing-view and the scope of the potential web content accessibility problem (WCAG), identification might involve highlighting elements or renderings of elements, displaying line numbers, or providing instructions.
 @Several
  • Examples in other tools: @@WAVE, Acrobat Accessibility Checker
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes. TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.         Yes    

B.3.1.4 Status Report:

If the authoring tool provides checks, then authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. (Level AA)

  • Note: The format of the accessibility status report is not specified and they might include a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.0 conformance level, etc..
 @Several
  • Examples in other tools: @@WAVE, Acrobat Accessibility Checker
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes. TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.              

B.3.1.5 Programmatic Association of Results:

If the authoring tool provides checks, then the authoring tool can programmatically associate accessibility checking results with the web content that was checked. (Level AA)

 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools: @@EARL producing checkers?
 Yes (AChecker can export results) No Yes. TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.              
Guideline B.3.2: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG):

If checking (see Success Criterion B.3.1.1) can detect that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion is not met, then repair suggestion(s) are provided: (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

  • Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems (WCAG). However, manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In manual repair, the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems, which authors must carry out by themselves. For more information on repair, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation.
 Level A:@Several
  • Examples in other tools: @@WAVE (Manual repair instructions are provided)
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes. TinyMCE with Achecker plugin.         Yes (manual repair instructions with some pointing to semi-automated repair functionality)    
Level AA:@Several
  • Examples in other tools: WAVE, Acrobat Accessibility Checker
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes. TinyMCE with Achecker plugin              
Level AAA:@At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools: @@WebAIM WAVE? Deque? HiSoftware? CommonLook?
Yes (via button launching AChecker) No Yes. TinyMCE with Achecker plugin              
PRINCIPLE B.4: Authoring tools must promote and integrate their accessibility features Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections
Guideline B.4.1: Ensure the availability of features that support the production of accessible content. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.4.1.1 Features Active by Default:

All accessible content support features are turned on by default. (Level A)

 

@Several

  • Examples in other tools: @@
 Yes Yes Yes Yes   Yes   No. Checker is not active by default.    

B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features:

If authors can turn off an accessible content support feature, then they can turn the feature back on. (Level A)

 @Many
  • Examples in other tools: @@SAKAI 3.0 HTML Authoring Component?
 Yes Yes Yes     Yes (e.g., "Accessibility" preferences page)   Yes    

B.4.1.3 Feature Deactivation Warning:

If authors turn off an accessible content support feature, then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems (WCAG). (Level AA)

 @None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools: @@
 N/A. Can't be turned off. N/A. Can't be turned off. N/A. Can't be turned off.              

B.4.1.4 Feature Prominence:

All accessible content support features are at least as prominent as features related to either invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling errors or grammar errors. (Level AA)

 @At-least-one
  • Examples in other tools: @@
 Yes N/A. No checker. Yes              
Guideline B.4.2: Ensure that documentation promotes the production of accessible content. Overall/ Other TinyMCE with Achecker Plugin CKEditor (tested in FF6.0.2) ATutor 2.1 LCMS Defacto CMS Drupal 7 Dreamweaver CS5.5 InDesign CS5.5 MS Word 2010 SharePoint 2010 Lotus Connections

B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG):

A range of examples in the documentation (e.g., markup, screen shots of WYSIWYG editing-views) demonstrate accessible authoring practices (WCAG). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Level A:@At-least-one

  • Examples in other tools: @@
N/A (no included documentation)   Yes Yes            
Level AA:@None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools: Acrobat? @@
 N/A   Yes              
Level AAA:@None-confirmed
  • Examples in other tools: OpenCaps @@
 N/A   No              

B.4.2.2 Feature Instructions:

Instructions for using any accessible content support features appear in the documentation. (Level A)

@Many

  • Examples in other tools: SAKAI 3.0 HTML Authoring Component? @@
 Yes Yes Yes     Yes   Yes    

B.4.2.3 Tutorial:

The authoring tool provides a tutorial for an accessible authoring process that is specific to that authoring tool. (Level AAA)

@At-least-one

  • Examples in other tools: Acrobat, @@
 No No No     Yes (example)   Yes "Video: Find and fix accessibility issues in Word 2010"    

B.4.2.4 Instruction Index:

The authoring tool documentation contains an index to the instructions for using any accessible content support features. (Level AAA)

@At-least-one

  • Examples in other tools: @@

 

 No No No     Yes.(example)   Yes. "Accessibility Features in Microsoft Office 2010"    

Applicability Notes:

These must always be considered.

For PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible:

  1. Scope of "authoring tool user interface": The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are concerned with producing the "included" web content technologies. This includes views of the web content being edited and features that are independent of the content being edited (e.g., menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences, documentation).
  2. Reflected content accessibility problems: The authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that editing-views display the web content being edited in a way that is more accessible to authors with disabilities (e.g., ensuring that text alternatives in the content can be programmatically determined). However, where an authoring tool user interface accessibility problem is caused directly by the content being edited (e.g., if an image in the content lacks a text alternative), then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface.
  3. Developer control: The Part A success criteria only apply to the authoring tool user interface as it is provided by the developer. They do not apply to any subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g., user modifications of default settings, third-party plug-ins).
  4. User agent features: Web-based authoring tools may rely on user agent features (e.g., keyboard navigation, find functions, display preferences, undo features) to satisfy success criteria. Conformance claims are optional, but any claim that is made must record the user agent(s).
  5. Accessibility of features provided to meet Part A: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.g., documentation, search functions). The only exemption is for preview features, as long as they meet the relevant success criteria in Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing-views because all authors, including those with disabilities, benefit when preview features accurately reflect the functionality of user agents that are actually in use by end users.
  6. Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria, the success criteria do not apply when these semantics are missing (e.g., text that describes an image is only considered to be a text alternative when this role is encoded within markup).

For PART B: Support the production of accessible content:

  1. Author availability: Any Part B success criteria that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions.
  2. Developer control: The Part B success criteria only apply to the authoring tool as it is provided by the developer. This does not include subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g., third-party plug-ins, user-defined templates, user modifications of default settings).
  3. Applicability after the end of an authoring session: Authoring tools are responsible for the web content accessibility (WCAG) of web content that they automatically generate after the end of an author's authoring session (see Success Criterion B.1.1.1). For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a content management system, these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content. Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of content that the author causes, whether it is author-generated or automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified (e.g., a third-party feed).
  4. Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.g., an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking tool).
  5. Accessibility of features provided to meet Part B: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.g., checking tools, repair tools, tutorials, documentation).
  6. Multiple authoring roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles, each with different views and content editing permissions (e.g., a content management system may separate the roles of designers, content authors, and quality assurers). In these cases, the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole, not to the view provided to any particular authoring role. Accessible content support features should be made available to any authoring role where it would be useful.
  7. Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria, the success criteria do not apply when these semantics are missing (e.g., text that describes an image is only considered to be a text alternative when this role is encoded within markup).