This document is an appendix to the W3C "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (W3C Working Draft 28 October 2005). It provides a list of all checkpoints from the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, organized by priority, as a checklist for authoring tools developers, authoring tools users and evalutators. Please refer to the Guidelines document for introductory information, information about related documents, a glossary of terms, and more.
This list may be used to review an authoring tool for accessibility. For each checkpoint, indicate whether the checkpoint has been satisfied, has not been satisfied, or is not applicable.
This document has been produced as part of the Web Accessibility Initiative.
The goal of the WAI Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is discussed in the Working Group charter.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication.
Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the
latest revision of this technical report can be found in the
W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This document is an appendix to a document which will supersede the W3C Recommendation
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines
1.0 [ATAG10]. It has been made available for review by W3C
Members and other interested parties, in accordance with W3C Process. It is
not endorsed by the W3C or its Members. It is inappropriate to refer to this
document other than as a work in progress.
This document has been produced by the Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines Working Group (AUWG)
as part of the Web Accessibility
Initiative (WAI). The goals of
the Working Group are discussed in the AUWG charter.
The AUWG is
part of the WAI
Technical Activity.
The Working Group maintains a list of patent disclosures and issues related to ATAG
2.0.
ATAG 2.0 depends on WCAG to act as a benchmark for
judging the accessibility of Web content and Web-based authoring interfaces
and also to define the terms "Accessible
Web Content" and "Accessible
Authoring Interface".
At the time of publication, version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation [WCAG10],
and a second version of the guidelines is under development [WCAG20]. @@revisit this when WCAG becomes a recommendation@@
Note that within the guidelines section of ATAG 2.0, references
are made to WCAG without an associated version number. This has been done to
allow developers to select, for the conformance profile,
whichever version of WCAG is most appropriate for the circumstances of a given
authoring tool. The Working Group does recommend considering the following factors
when deciding on which WCAG version to use:
- The latest version of WCAG will be the most accurate with respect to state-of-the-art
technologies and accessibility best practices. Older versions of WCAG may
include requirements that are no longer necessary, due to advances in user
agent technology.
- The versions of WCAG differ with respect to the formats for which there
are published WCAG technique documents. This is important because ATAG 2.0
requires that published WCAG technique documents be available for any output
formats that are given priority by the authoring tool (Checkpoint B.1.1).
- The versions of WCAG differ in the degree to which they match the legislation
and policies that drive author requirements. Many authors will be seeking
to use authoring tools to create Web content that meets legislation, corporate
policies, etc. It is likely that as WCAG progresses, so too will legislation
and policies, albeit at an uneven pace. Authoring tool developers may, therefore,
consider supporting both versions of WCAG.
The AUWG expects the ATAG 2.0 to be backwards-compatible with ATAG 1.0, or at most
to make only minor changes in requirements. Before this document reaches last
call, the Working Group will publish a detailed analysis of the differences
in requirements.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
Please send comments about this document to the public mailing
list: w3c-wai-au@w3.org (public
archives). Please note that this document may contain
typographical errors. It was published as soon as possible since
review of the content itself is important, although noting
typographical errors is also helpful.
For information about the current activities of the working
group, please refer to the AUWG home page. This page
includes an explanation of the inter-relation of each document as
well as minutes and previous drafts.
Checkpoint priority levels
Each checkpoint has been assigned a priority
level that indicates the importance of the checkpoint in satisfying
the guideline under which the checkpoint appears. The priority
of a checkpoint determines whether that checkpoint must be met in order
for an authoring tool to achieve a particular conformance
level. There are three
levels of "regular priority" checkpoints as
well as a special class of "relative priority"
checkpoints that
rely on WCAG as a benchmark for determining what is considered accessible Web content.
"Regular Priority" Checkpoints
- Priority 1
- in Part A: Indicates that if the authoring
tool does not satisfy these checkpoints, one or more groups of authors
with disabilities will find it impossible to author
for the Web.
in Part B: Indicates that these checkpoints are
essential for any authors using the authoring tool to
create Web content that conforms to WCAG.
- Priority 2
- in Part A: Indicates that if the authoring tool does not satisfy these checkpoints,
one or more groups of authors with disabilities will find it difficult to
author for the Web.
in Part B: Indicates that these checkpoints
are
important for any authors using the authoring tool
to create Web content that conforms to WCAG.
- Priority 3
-
- in Part A: Indicates that if the authoring tool does not satisfy these checkpoints,
one or more groups of authors with disabilities will find it inefficient to
author for the Web.
in Part B: Indicates that these
checkpoints are
beneficial for any authors using the authoring tool
to create Web content that conforms to WCAG.
The
importance of the relative checkpoints depends on the requirements defined
by whichever version of WCAG the evaluator has defined in the conformance
profile.
These checkpoints can be met to one of three levels:
- Level 1
-
- in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the minimum conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "A" or WCAG 2.0 Level "A" (as defined in the conformance profile).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set at the minimum conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "A" or WCAG 2.0 Level "A" (as defined in the conformance profile).
- Level 2
- in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the intermediate conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Double-A" or "WCAG 2.0 Level AA" (as defined in the conformance profile).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set at the intermediate conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Double-A" or "WCAG 2.0 Level AA" (as defined in the conformance profile).
- Level 3
- in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the stringent conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Triple-A" or "WCAG 2.0 Level AAA" (as defined in the conformance profile).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set at the stringent conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Triple-A" or "WCAG 2.0 Level AAA" (as defined in the conformance profile).
Note: The choice of priority level for each checkpoint is
based on the assumption that the author is a competent, but not necessarily
expert, user of the authoring tool, and that the author has little or no knowledge
of accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to have read all of
the documentation, but is expected to know how to turn to the documentation
for assistance.
"Regular Priority" Checkpoints
Priority 1 checkpoints
Checkpoint | Success Criteria | Yes | No | N/A |
A.1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content in the user interface. (Techniques for A.1.1) |
- All user interface non-text objects that are used to convey information (e.g., toolbar icon, graphical depiction of a tag,
sound effect, etc.) must have a text alternative (e.g. alternative text label, long text description).
- All editing views must always
include an option to display any available text
alternatives for non-text objects in the content.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint.
|
|
|
|
A.1.2 Provide synchronized alternatives for multimedia in the user interface. (Techniques for A.1.2) |
- All user interface multimedia that is used to convey information (e.g., tutorial videos, progress indicators, etc.) must have
synchronized alternatives (e.g. captions, audio descriptions).
- All editing views must always
include an option to display any available synchronized alternatives
for multimedia in the content.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint. |
|
|
|
A.1.3 Ensure that all displays are configurable. (Techniques for A.1.3) |
- If the visual display (fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning, etc.) is controlled by the authoring tool rather than by the platform, then the authoring tool must provide at least the same configurable properties with at least the same configuration ranges as the platform.
- If the audio display (volume, speech voices, etc.) is controlled by the authoring tool rather than by the platform, then the authoring tool must provide at least the same configurable properties with at least the same configuration ranges as the platform.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint. |
|
|
|
A.1.4 Allow the display preferences for the editing view to be changed without affecting the document markup. (Techniques for A.1.4) |
- The author must be able to configure the presentation settings of editing views without affecting the Web content being edited.
|
|
|
|
A.2.1 Ensure that all functionality is operable via a keyboard or a keyboard interface. (Techniques for A.2.1) |
- The author must be able, through keyboard input alone,
to perform any authoring task (e.g. navigating, selecting, and
editing content within editing views, operating the user interface, installing and configuring the authoring
tool, and accessing documentation) that is available through the
user interface. (Note: an authoring task may have multiple user mechanisms, e.g. a menu item and a button bar item, at least one of which must satisfy this success criteria)
- There must be an option that ensures that selection is separate from activation (e.g. navigating through the items in a dropdown menu without activating any of the items).
- Single-key access must be provided to the following functionalities:
- move content focus to
the next enabled control in user interface.
- navigate forward and backward within editing views.
- Key-plus-modifier-key (or single-key) access must be provided
to the following functionalities (if
present):
- move content focus to the previous enabled control
- navigate between panels or windows
- open help system
- open new content
- open existing content
- save content
- close content
- cut/copy/paste
- undo/redo
- open find/replace function
- navigate to the start and end
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint. |
|
|
|
A.2.3 Allow authors to control time limits. (Techniques for A.2.3) |
- All user interface time limits must be
author configurable unless they are controlled by time-sensitive external
processes (e.g. time-outs of systems outside of the authoring tool).
- If a time limit is under the control of the authoring tool, it must not be less than 20 seconds and must be extendible with a single input action.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint. |
|
|
|
A.2.4 Allow authors to avoid content that could cause seizures due to photosensitivity. (Techniques for A.2.4) |
- Authors must be able to turn off flashing in the user interface
that violates international health and safety standards for general flash or red flash.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint. |
|
|
|
A.3.3 Document the authoring interface including all interface accessibility features. (Techniques for A.3.3) |
- At least one version of the documentation must conform to the minimum requirements (Level 1) of WCAG (whether delivered on the Web, CD-ROM, etc.).
- All features that benefit the accessibility of the authoring
interface must be documented in the help system (e.g., keyboard shortcuts).
- The current configuration of selectable actions must be
displayed in either a centralized fashion (e.g., a list of keyboard shortcuts)
or a distributed fashion (e.g., by listing keyboard shortcuts in
the user interface menus).
|
|
|
|
A.4.1 Support interoperability with assistive technologies. (Techniques for A.4.1) |
- The authoring tool must conform to accessibility platform
architectures (e.g. MSAA, Java Access, etc.).
- If there is any authoring tool functionality or information that
is not addressed by available accessibility platform architectures,
an interoperability mechanism must be provided (and published) so
that all authoring tasks can be accomplished in at least one way by
an assistive technology implementing the mechanism.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint. |
|
|
|
B.1.1 Support content types that enable the creation of Web content that conforms to WCAG. (Techniques for B.1.1) |
- Any authoring tool that chooses the content type used for publication on the Web for the author must always choose content types for which a published content type-specific
WCAG benchmark exists.
- Any authoring tool that allows authors to choose the content type used for publication on the Web must always
support at least one content type for which a published content type-specific
WCAG benchmark exists and always give prominence to
those content types.
|
|
|
|
B.2.4 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. (Techniques for B.2.4) |
- When the author inserts an unrecognized non-text object, the
tool must never
insert an automatically generated text equivalent (e.g. a label generated
from the file name).
- 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 always
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.
|
|
|
|
Priority 2 checkpoints
Checkpoint | Success Criteria | Yes | No | N/A |
A.2.5 Ensure that editing views enable the author to navigate the
structure and perform structure-based edits. (Techniques for A.2.5) |
- For any structured element set, the author must always be
able to move the editing focus from any element to any other element with the following relationship (if they exist): the element immediately above (i.e. parent),
the first element immediately below (i.e. child), the element immediately
preceding at the same level (i.e. previous sibling), and the element
immediately following at the same level (i.e. next sibling).
- For any structured element set, the author must always be
able to select content and perform editing functions (e.g. cut, copy, paste, styling) on any element
along with any content, including sub-elements.
|
|
|
|
A.2.6 Allow the author to search content and markup within the editing
views. (Techniques for A.2.6) |
- The author must be able to perform text searches of
all content that is editable by the author.
- The author must be able to perform text searches of all markup that is editable by the author.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Web-based authoring tools may make use of the find
function of the browsers to help perform the searches.
|
|
|
|
A.2.7 Provide an undo function. (Techniques for A.2.7) |
- Actions that modify content must be either reversible
with an undo function or include a warning to the author
that the action is irreversible.
- The author must be able to perform a series of multiple undos.
- The author must be able to undo any series of undos.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Web-based authoring tools may rely on the undo
function of the browser to perform the undo function for editing actions that
do not involve server communication (e.g. typing in a text area). Therefore, all Web-based interface components, that meet Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint as long as the user agent(s) specified in the conformance profile have the ability to perform at least one level of text entry undo.
|
|
|
|
A.2.8 Provide personalized configuration. (Techniques for A.2.8) |
- The authoring tool must provide the ability to save and reload all configuration settings related to visual or auditory output and keyboard operability.
- The author must be able to select, within the application, from multiple configuration sets.
|
|
|
|
A.2.9 Ensure previews emulate the accessible rendering features of target browsers. (Techniques for A.2.9) |
- If a preview is provided, then:
- (a) The author must be able to choose an external browser to perform the preview
- (b) or, the preview must provide the same accessibility features as a target browser (which must be identified in the conformance profile) that is being emulated and the following must be true:
- Any authoring tool user interface other than the content being previewed must meet the other requirements of Part A.
- A means of exiting the preview must be provided that meet the other requirements of Part A.
- (c) or, the preview does not claim to emulate a specific browser, in which case it must meet all of the requirements of Part A. In other words, Note 1 does not apply.
|
|
|
|
A.3.1 Observe the accessibility conventions of the platform. (Techniques for A.3.1) |
- Focus and selection conventions for the current platform (specified in the conformance profile) must be followed.
- Keyboard accessibility configuration conventions (e.g. default accelerator key bindings) for the current platform (specified in the conformance profile) must be followed.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint.
|
|
|
|
A.3.2 Maintain consistency within the authoring tool user interface. (Techniques for A.3.2) |
- User interface controls with the same text label or icon must perform the same function.
- Any text label or icon must not have more than one function.
- When the same function (e.g. saving, running a checker or canceling
an action) is available in multiple areas of an authoring tool
user interface, at least one method of controlling the function
must be implemented for each area using identical user interface
elements.
For Web-Based Interface Components: Meeting Checkpoint A.0.1 will serve to meet this checkpoint.
|
|
|
|
B.1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves all unrecognized markup and accessibility
information during transformations and conversions. (Techniques for B.1.2) |
- All transformations and conversions supported by the authoring
tool must always meet both of the following conditions:
- (a) The author is notified before any unrecognized
markup is permanently removed.
- (b) All accessibility
information is handled according to at least one of
the following:
- (i) Be preserved in the target format such that the
information can be "round-tripped" (i.e.
converted or transformed back into its original form)
by the same authoring tool.
- (ii) Be preserved in some other way in the target
format.
- (iii) Be removed only after the author has been notified
and the content has been preserved in its original
format
|
|
|
|
B.2.7 Document in the help system all features of the tool that support the production of accessible content. (Techniques for B.2.7) |
- All features that play a role in creating accessible content must
be documented in the help system.
|
|
|
|
B.3.1 Ensure
that the most accessible option for an authoring task is given priority. (Techniques for B.3.1) |
- When the author has more than one authoring option for a given task (e.g. changing the color of text can be changed with presentation
markup or style sheets) then any options that conform to WCAG must have equal or higher
prominence than any options that do not.
- Any choices of content types or authoring
practices presented to the
author (e.g., in menus, toolbars or dialogs) that will lead to
the creation of content that does not conforms to WCAG must be marked
or labeled so that the author is aware of the consequences prior
to making the choice.
|
|
|
|
B.3.2 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions, and
documentation are always clearly available to the author. (Techniques for B.3.2) |
- All accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation
that is continuously
active must always be enabled
by default and if the author disables them (e.g. from a
preferences screen), then the tool must inform
the author that this may increase the risk of accessibility problems.
- All user interface controls for accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation
must have at least the same prominence as
the controls for prompting, checking, repair
and documentation for other types of Web content problems (e.g.
markup validity, program code syntax, spelling and grammar).
|
|
|
|
B.3.3 Ensure that sequential authoring processes integrate accessible
authoring practices. (Techniques for B.3.3) |
- Any authoring tool feature that helps to sequence
author actions (such as object insertion dialogs, design guides,
templates, wizards, tutorials, or instruction text) must integrate
relevant accessibility prompts at or before the author is required
to make the authoring decision related to the prompt (e.g. finalize a page design wizard or an image insertion operation).
|
|
|
|
Priority 3 checkpoints
Checkpoint | Success Criteria | Yes | No | N/A |
A.2.2 Ensure user configurable access to selectable actions. (Techniques for A.2.2) |
- There must be an option to add and modify key-plus-modifier-key (or single-key) access to all selectable actions.
- There must be an option to customize the items (from the set of all selectable actions) and their order within at least one area of the user interface that is controllable by a single selection (e.g. button bar, palette, panel, etc).
|
|
|
|
A.2.5 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative
equivalents. (Techniques for A.2.5) |
- 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.
|
|
|
|
B.2.6 Provide the author with a summary of accessibility status. (Techniques for B.2.6) |
- The authoring tool must provide an option to view a list
of all known accessibility
problems (i.e. detected by automated
checking or identified by the author) prior to completion
of authoring.
|
|
|
|
B.2.8 Ensure that accessibility is demonstrated in all documentation and help, including
examples. (Techniques for B.2.8) |
- All examples of markup and screenshots of the authoring
tool user interface that appear in the documentation and help must demonstrate accessible
Web content.
|
|
|
|
B.2.9 Provide a tutorial on the process of accessible authoring. (Techniques for B.2.9) |
- A tutorial on the accessible authoring process for the specific authoring
tool must be provided.
|
|
|
|
B.3.4 Ensure
that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation
are configurable. (Techniques for B.3.4) |
- The configurability of all functions related to accessibility prompting,
checking, repair,
and documentation must at least match
the configurability of other prompting, checking, repair,
and documentation functions of the tool (respectively), in terms
of both of the following:
- (a) the range
of options controllable by the author, and
- (b) the degree
to which each option can be controlled
|
|
|
|
"Relative Priority" Checkpoints
Checkpoint | Success Criteria | Level | Yes | No | N/A |
A.0.1 Ensure that browser-accessed functionality conforms to WCAG. (Techniques for A.0.1) |
- Any component of an authoring tool that is accessed by the author within a Web browser must conform to WCAG.
|
|
|
|
|
B.1.3 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates content it conforms
to WCAG. (Techniques for B.1.3) |
- All markup and content that is automatically generated by the
authoring tool (i.e. not authored
"by hand") must always conform to WCAG.
|
|
|
|
|
B.1.4 Ensure that all pre-authored content for the tool conforms to WCAG. (Techniques for B.1.4) |
- Any Web content (e.g.,
templates, clip art, example pages, etc.) that is bundled with
the authoring tool or preferentially licensed to the users of the
authoring tool (i.e. provided for free or sold at a discount),
must conform to WCAG when
used by the author.
|
|
|
|
|
B.2.1 Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to WCAG. (Techniques for B.2.1) |
- Every time that content that requires accessibility
information from
the author in order to conform to WCAG is added or updated, then the
authoring tool must inform the
author that this additional information is required (e.g. via
input dialogs, interactive feedback, etc.).
- Whenever the tool provides instructions to the author, either the
instructions (if followed) must lead to the creation of Web content that conforms to WCAG, or the author must be informed that following the
instructions would lead to Web content accessibility problems.
|
|
|
|
|
B.2.2 Check
for and inform the author of accessibility problems. (Techniques for B.2.2) |
- An individual check must be associated with each requirement in the content type benchmark document (i.e. not blanket statements such as "does the content meet all the requirements").
- For checks that are associated with a type of element (e.g.
img ), each element instance must be individually identified as potential accessibility problems. For checks that are relevant across multiple elements (e.g. consistent navigation, etc.) or apply to most or all elements (e.g. background color contrast, reading level, etc.), the entire span of elements must be identified as potential accessibility problems, up to the entire content if applicable.
- If the authoring tool relies on author judgment to determine if a potential accessibility problem is correctly identified, then the message to the author must be tailored to that potential accessibility problem (i.e. to that requirement in the context of that element or span of elements).
- The authoring tool must present checking as an option to the author at or before the completion of authoring.
Note: This checkpoint does not apply to authoring
tools that constrain authoring choice to such a degree that it is not
possible to create Web content that does not conform to WCAG. |
|
|
|
|
B.2.3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. (Techniques for B.2.3) |
- For each potential accessibility problem identified by the checking function (required in checkpoint B.2.2) provide at least one of the following:
|
|
|
|
|