Movatterモバイル変換

Abstract

This specification provides guidelines for Web authoring tool developers.Its purpose is two-fold: to assist developers in designing authoring tools thatproduce accessible Web content and to assist developers in creating anaccessible authoring interface.

Authoring tools can enable, encourage, and assist users ("authors") in thecreation of accessible Web content through prompts, alerts, checking and repairfunctions, help files and automated tools. It is just as important that allpeople be able to author content as it is for all people to have access to it.The tools used to create this information must therefore be accessiblethemselves. Adoption of these guidelines will contribute to the proliferationof Web content that can be read by a broader range of readers and authoringtools that can be used by a broader range of authors.

This document is part of a series of accessibility documents published bytheW3CWeb Accessibility Initiative(WAI).

Status of this document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of itspublication. Other documents may supersede this document. The latest status ofthis document series is maintained at theW3C.

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested partiesand has been endorsed by the Director as aW3C Recommendation. It is astable document and may be used as reference material or cited as a normativereference from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is todraw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment.This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

Alog of changes betweensuccessive Working Drafts is available.

For further information about Working Group decisions, please consult theminutes ofAUWG Meetings.

This document has been produced by theAuthoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) as part of theWeb Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the Working Group arediscussed in theAUWGcharter.

Please send general comments about this document to the public mailing list:w3c-wai-au@w3.org (public archives).

The English version of this specification is the only normative version.Information about translations of this document is available athttp://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG-TRANSLATIONS.

The list of known errors in this document is available athttp://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/ATAG-ERRATA. Please report errors in this document towai-atag-editor@w3.org.

A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documentsincluding Working Drafts and Notes can be found athttp://www.w3.org/TR.

An appendix to this document[ATAG10-CHECKLIST] lists all checkpoints forconvenient reference.

1.Introduction

In these guidelines, the term "authoringtool" refers to the wide range of software used for creating Webcontent, including:

• Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content (e.g., WYSIWYGHTML and XML editors);
• Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web format (e.g., wordprocessors or desktop publishing packages);
• Tools that transform documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to transformdesktop publishing formats to HTML);
• Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is intended for use onthe Web (e.g., video production and editing suites, SMIL authoringpackages);
• Tools for site management or site publication, including tools thatautomatically generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-flyconversion tools, and Web site publishing tools;
• Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).

The goals of this document can be stated as follows: that the authoring toolbe accessible to authors regardless of disability, that it produce accessiblecontent by default, and that it support and encourage the author in creatingaccessible content. Because most of the content of the Web is created usingauthoring tools, they play a critical role in ensuring theaccessibility of the Web. Since the Web is botha means of receiving information and communicating information, it is importantthat both the Web content produced and the authoring tool itself beaccessible.

To achieve these goals, authoring tool developers must take steps such asensuring conformance to accessible standards (e.g., HTML 4), checking andcorrecting accessibility problems, prompting, and providing appropriatedocumentation and help. For detailed information about what constitutesaccessible content, these guidelines rely on the Web Content AccessibilityGuidelines 1.0[WCAG10]. Similarly, rather than directly reproducing existingspecifications that address general accessible software design, theseguidelines rely on other sources. The present guidelines do address accessibledesign considerations specific to Web authoring tools such as providingflexible editing views, navigation aids and access to display properties forauthors.

The principles set forth in these guidelines will benefit many people who donot have a disability but who have similar needs. This includes people who workin noisy or quiet environments where the use of sound is not practical, peoplewho need to use their eyes for another task and are unable to view a screen,and people who use small mobile devices that have a small screen, no keyboard,and no mouse.

A separate document, entitled "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"[ATAG10-TECHS], provides suggestionsand examples of how each checkpoint might be satisfied. It also includesreferences to other accessibility resources (such as platform-specific softwareaccessibility guidelines) that provide additional information on how a tool maysatisfy each checkpoint. Readers are strongly encouraged to become familiarwith the Techniques Document as well as "Techniques for Web ContentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0"[WCAG10-TECHS] and "Techniques for User AgentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0"[UAAG10-TECHS].

Note: The techniques in[ATAG10-TECHS] are informative examplesonly. Other strategies may be used to satisfy the checkpoints in addition to,or in place of, those discussed in[ATAG10-TECHS].

Note: Authoring tools that conform to this document willpropagate accessible Web content and be useful to anyone regardless ofdisability. There will also be authoring tools that produce accessible contentin favorable circumstances (e.g., a text editor used by a motivated author), orprovide an accessible interface to authors with certain disabilities, but thatdo not conform to these guidelines.

1.1How the Guidelines are organized

The seven guidelines in this document are general principles for accessibledesign. Each guideline includes:

• The guideline number;
• The statement of the guideline;
• The rationale behind the guideline;
• A list of checkpoint definitions.

The checkpoint definitions in each guideline specify requirements forauthoring tools to follow the guideline. Each checkpoint definitionincludes:

• The checkpoint number;
• The statement of the checkpoint;
• The priority of the checkpoint;
• In some cases informative notes, clarifying examples, or cross referencesto related guidelines or checkpoints;
• A link to a section of "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"[ATAG10-TECHS] where implementationsand examples of the checkpoint are discussed.

Each checkpoint is intended to be specific enough that it can be verified,while being sufficiently general to allow developers the freedom to use themost appropriate strategies to satisfy it.

An appendix to this specification[ATAG10-CHECKLIST] lists allcheckpoints for convenient reference.

1.3Conformance to these Guidelines

This section explains how to make avalidclaim that an authoring tool conforms to this document. Anyone may make aclaim (e.g., vendors about their own products, third parties about thoseproducts, journalists about products, etc.). Claims may be published anywhere(e.g., on the Web or in product documentation).

Claimants are solely responsible for their claims and the use of theconformance icons. If the subject of the claim(i.e., the software) changes after the date of the claim, the claimant isresponsible for updating the claim. Claimants are encouraged to conform to themost recent guidelines available.

Details about theconformance icons areprovided on the Web (refer to[CONFORMANCE]).

Conformance levels

A conformance claim must indicate what conformance level is met:

• Conformance Level "A": all Priority 1 checkpoints(including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.
• Conformance Level "Double-A": all Priority 1 and 2checkpoints (including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.
• Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3checkpoints (including Relative Priority checkpoints) are satisfied.

Note: Conformance levels are spelled out in text (e.g.,"Double-A" rather than "AA") so they may be understood when rendered asspeech.

Well-formed conformance claims

A well-formed claim must include the following information:

1. The guidelines title/version: "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0";
2. The URI of the guidelines: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203;
3. Theconformance level satisfied: "A","Double-A", or "Triple-A";
4. The version number and operating system of the software covered by theclaim. Also indicate whether any upgrades or plug-ins are required;
5. The date of the claim;
6. The checkpoints of the chosen conformance level considered not applicable.Claimants should use the checklist[ATAG10-CHECKLIST] for this purpose.

This information may be provided in text or metadata markup (e.g., using theResource Description Framework (RDF)[RDF10] and anRDF schema designedforWAI conformance claims). All content in the claim must beaccessible according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0[WCAG10].

Here is an example of a claim expressed in HTML:

<p>MyAuthoringTool version 2.3 on MyOperatingSystem conforms to<abbr title="the World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>'s"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203, level Double-A. Details of thisclaim are provided at <a href="http://somewhere.com/details">http://somewhere.com/details</a>.</p>

Validity of a claim

A conformance claim is valid for a givenconformance level if:

1. The claim iswell-formed, and
2. The authoring tool satisfies all the checkpoints for that level.

Claimants (or relevant assuring parties) are responsible for the validity ofa claim. As of the publication of this document, W3C does not act as anassuring party, but it may do so in the future, or establish recommendationsfor assuring parties.

Claimants are expected to modify or retract a claim if it may bedemonstrated that the claim is not valid. Please note that it is not currentlypossible to validate claims completely automatically.

Conformance Icons

As part of a conformance claim, people may use a conformance icon on a Website, on product packaging, in documentation, etc. Each conformance icon(chosen according to the appropriateconformancelevel) must link to the W3C explanation of the icon. The appearance of aconformance icon does not imply that W3C has reviewed or validated the claim.An icon must be accompanied by awell-formedclaim.

2.Guidelines

Guideline 1.Supportaccessible authoring practices.

If the tool automatically generates markup, many authors will be unaware ofthe accessibility status of the final content unless they expend extra effortto review it and make appropriate corrections by hand. Since many authors areunfamiliar with accessibility, authoring tools are responsible forautomatically generating accessible markup, and where appropriate, for guidingthe author in producing accessible content.

Many applications feature the ability to convertdocuments from other formats (e.g., Rich Text Format) into a markupformat specifically intended for the Web such as HTML. Markup changes may alsobe made to facilitate efficient editing and manipulation. It is essential thatthese processes do not introduceinaccessible markup or remove accessibility content,particularly when a tool hides the markup changes from the author's view.

Checkpoints:

1.1 Ensure that the author canproduceaccessible content inthemarkup language(s)supported by the tool.[Priority 1]

Techniquesfor checkpoint 1.1

1.2 Ensure that the tool preserves allaccessibility informationduring authoring,transformations, andconversions.[Priority 1]

Techniques forcheckpoint 1.2

1.3 Ensure that when the toolautomatically generates markup it conforms to theW3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0[WCAG10].[Relative Priority]

Techniquesfor checkpoint 1.3

1.4 Ensure that templates providedby the tool conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0[WCAG10].[Relative Priority]

Techniquesfor checkpoint 1.4

Guideline 2.Generatestandard markup.

Conformance with standards promotes interoperability and accessibility bymaking it easier to create specializeduseragents that address the needs of users with disabilities. Inparticular, many assistive technologies used with browsers and multimediaplayers are only able to provide access to Webdocuments that use valid markup. Therefore, valid markup is anessential aspect of authoring tool accessibility.

Where applicable useW3CRecommendations, which have been reviewed to ensure accessibility andinteroperability. If there are no applicableW3C Recommendations, use a published standard that enablesaccessibility.

Checkpoints:

2.1 Use the latest versions ofW3C Recommendations when they are available and appropriatefor a task.[Priority 2]

W3C specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that theydo not compromise accessibility, and where possible, they enhance it.

Techniques for checkpoint2.1

2.2 Ensure that the tool automaticallygenerates valid markup.[Priority 1]

This is necessary foruser agents tobe able to render Web content in a manner appropriate to a particular user'sneeds.

Techniques forcheckpoint 2.2

2.3 If markup produced by the tool doesnot conform to W3C specifications,inform the author.[Priority 3]

Techniques forcheckpoint 2.3

Guideline 3.Support thecreation of accessible content.

Well-structured information andequivalentalternative information are cornerstones of accessible design,allowing information to be presented in a way most appropriate for the needs ofthe user without constraining the creativity of the author. Yet producingequivalent information, such as text alternatives for images and auditorydescriptions of video, can be one of the most challenging aspects of Webdesign, and authoring tool developers should attempt to facilitate and automatethe mechanics of this process. For example, prompting authors to includeequivalent alternative information such astextequivalents,captions, andauditory descriptions at appropriatetimes can greatly ease the burden for authors. Where such information can bemechanically determined and offered as a choice for the author (e.g., thefunction of icons in an automatically-generated navigation bar, or expansion ofacronyms from a dictionary), the tool can assist the author. At the same time,the tool can reinforce the need for such information and the author's role inensuring that it is used appropriately in each instance.

Checkpoints:

3.1Prompt the author to provideequivalent alternative information (e.g.,captions,auditory descriptions, andcollated text transcripts for video).[Relative Priority]

Note: Some checkpoints in the Web Content AccessibilityGuidelines 1.0[WCAG10] may not apply.

Techniques forcheckpoint 3.1

3.2 Help the author create structuredcontent and separate information from its presentation.[Relative Priority]

Note: Some checkpoints in Web ContentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0[WCAG10] may not apply.

Techniquesfor checkpoint 3.2

3.3 Ensure that prepackaged contentconforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0[WCAG10].[Relative Priority]

For example, includecaptions, anauditory description, and acollated text transcript with prepackaged movies.Refer also to checkpoint3.4.

Techniques forcheckpoint 3.3

3.4 Do not automatically generateequivalent alternatives. Do not reusepreviously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when thefunction is known with certainty.[Priority 1]

For example,prompt the authorfor atext equivalent of an image.If the author has already provided a text equivalent for the same image used inanother document, offer to reuse that text and prompt the author forconfirmation. If the tool automatically generates a "Search" icon, it would beappropriate to automatically reuse the previously authored text equivalent forthat icon. Refer also tocheckpoint 3.3 andcheckpoint 3.5.

Note: Human-authored equivalent alternatives may beavailable for an object (for example, throughcheckpoint 3.5 and/orcheckpoint 3.3). It isappropriate for the tool to offer these to the author as defaults.

Techniques forcheckpoint 3.4

3.5 Provide functionality for managing,editing, and reusingalternativeequivalents for multimedia objects.[Priority 3]

Note: These alternative equivalents may be packaged withthe tool, written by the author, retrieved from the Web, etc.

Techniques forcheckpoint 3.5

Guideline 4.Provide ways ofchecking and correcting inaccessible content.

Many authoring tools allow authors to create documents with little or noknowledge about the underlying markup. To ensure accessibility, authoring toolsmust be designed so that they can (where possible, automatically) identifyinaccessible markup,and enable its correction even when the markup itself is hidden from theauthor.

Authoring tool support for the creation of accessible Web content shouldaccount for different authoring styles. Authors who can configure the tool'saccessibility features to support their regular work patterns are more likelyto accept accessible authoring practices (refer toguideline 5). For example,some authors may prefer to be alerted toaccessibility problems when they occur, whereasothers may prefer to perform a check at the end of an editing session. This isanalogous to programming environments that allow users to decide whether tocheck for correct code during editing or at compilation.

Note: Validation of markup is an essential aspect ofchecking the accessibility of content.

Checkpoints:

4.1Check for andinform the author ofaccessibility problems.[Relative Priority]

Note: Accessibility problems should bedetected automatically where possible. Where this is not possible, the tool mayneed toprompt the author to make decisions or tomanually check for certain types of problems.

Techniques forcheckpoint 4.1

4.2 Assist authors in correctingaccessibilityproblems.[Relative Priority]

At a minimum, provide context-sensitive help with theaccessibility checking required bycheckpoint 4.1

Techniquesfor checkpoint 4.2

4.3 Allow the author to preserve markup not recognized by the tool.[Priority 2]

Note: The author may have included orimported markup that enhances accessibility but is not recognized by thetool.

Techniques forcheckpoint 4.3

4.4 Provide the author with a summary ofthe document's accessibility status.[Priority 3]

Techniques forcheckpoint 4.4

4.5 Allow the author to transformpresentation markup thatis misused to convey structure intostructural markup, and totransform presentation markup used for style into style sheets.[Priority 3]

Techniques forcheckpoint 4.5

Guideline 5.Integrateaccessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel".

When a new feature is added to an existing software tool without properintegration, the result is often an obvious discontinuity. Differing colorschemes, fonts, interaction styles, and even software stability can be factorsaffecting author acceptance of the new feature. In addition, the relativeprominence of different ways to accomplish the same task can influence whichone the author chooses. Therefore, it is important that creating accessiblecontent be a natural process when using an authoring tool.

Checkpoints:

5.1 Ensure that functionality related toaccessible authoringpractices is naturally integrated into the overall look and feel of thetool.[Priority 2]

Techniques forcheckpoint 5.1

5.2 Ensure thataccessible authoringpractices supporting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0[WCAG10] Priority 1checkpoints are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author.[Priority 2]

Techniques forcheckpoint 5.2

Guideline 6.Promoteaccessibility in help and documentation.

Web authors may not be familiar with accessibility issues that arise whencreating Web content. Therefore, help and documentation must includeexplanations ofaccessibilityproblems, and should demonstrate solutions with examples.

Checkpoints:

6.1 Document all features that promote theproduction of accessible content.[Priority 1]

Techniques forcheckpoint 6.1

6.2 Ensure that creating accessiblecontent is a naturally integrated part of the documentation, includingexamples.[Priority 2]

Techniquesfor checkpoint 6.2

6.3 In a dedicated section,document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessiblecontent.[Priority 3]

Techniques for checkpoint 6.3

Guideline 7.Ensure that theauthoring tool is accessible to authors with disabilities.

The authoring tool is a software program with standard user interfaceelements and as such must be designed according to relevant user interfaceaccessibility guidelines. When custom interface components are created, it isessential that they be accessible through the standard access mechanisms forthe relevant platform so that assistive technologies can be used with them.

Some additional user interface design considerations apply specifically toWeb authoring tools. For instance,authoring tools must ensure that the author can edit (in anediting view) using one set of stylistic preferencesand publish using different styles. Authors with low vision may need large textwhen editing but want to publish with a smaller default text size. The stylepreferences of the editing view must not affect the markup of the publisheddocument.

Authoring tools must also ensure that the author can navigate a documentefficiently while editing, regardless of disability. Authors who use screenreaders, refreshable braille displays, or screen magnifiers can make limiteduse (if at all) of graphical artifacts that communicate the structure of thedocument and act as signposts when traversing it. Authors who cannot use amouse (e.g., people with physical disabilities or who are blind) must use theslow and tiring process of moving one step at a time through the document toaccess the desired content, unless more efficient navigation methods areavailable. Authoring tools should therefore provide anediting view that conveys a sense of the overall structure andallows structured navigation.

Note: Documentation, help files, and installation are partof the software and need to be available in anaccessible form.

Checkpoints:

7.1 Use all applicable operatingsystem and accessibility standards and conventions (Priority 1 for standardsand conventions that are essential to accessibility; Priority 2 for those thatare important to accessibility; Priority 3 for those that are beneficial toaccessibility).

The techniques for this checkpoint include references to checklists andguidelines for a number of platforms and to general guidelines foraccessible applications.

Techniquesfor checkpoint 7.1

7.2 Allow the author to change thepresentation withinediting viewswithout affecting the document markup.[Priority 1]

This allows the author to edit the document according to personalrequirements, without changing the way the document is rendered whenpublished.

Techniques forcheckpoint 7.2

7.3 Allow the author to edit allproperties of eachelement and object in an accessiblefashion.[Priority 1]

Techniques forcheckpoint 7.3

7.4 Ensure that theediting view allows navigation via thestructure of the document in an accessible fashion.[Priority 1]

Techniques forcheckpoint 7.4

7.5 Enable editing of the structure of the document in an accessiblefashion.[Priority 2]

Techniques forcheckpoint 7.5

7.6 Allow the author to search withinediting views.[Priority 2]

Techniques forcheckpoint 7.6

3.Glossary of Terms and Definitions

Accessibility (Also:Accessible)

Within these guidelines, "accessible Web content" and "accessible authoringtool" mean that the content and tool can be used by people regardless ofdisability.

To understand the accessibility issues relevant to authoring tool design,consider that many authors may be creating content in contexts very differentfrom your own:

• They may not be able to see, hear, move, or may not be able to process sometypes of information easily or at all;
• They may have difficulty reading or comprehending text;
• They may not have or be able to use a keyboard or mouse;
• They may have a text-only display, or a small screen.

Accessible design will benefit people in these different authoringscenarios and also many people who do not have a physical disability but whohave similar needs. For example, someone may be working in a noisy environmentand thus require an alternative representation of audio information. Similarly,someone may be working in an eyes-busy environment and thus require an audioequivalent to information they cannot view. Users of small mobile devices (withsmall screens, no keyboard, and no mouse) have similar functional needs as someusers with disabilities.

AccessibilityInformation

"Accessibility information" is content, including information and markup,that is used to improve the accessibility of a document. Accessibilityinformation includes, but is not limited to,equivalent alternative information.

AccessibilityProblem (Also:Inaccessible Markup)

Inaccessible Web content or authoring tools cannot be used by some peoplewith disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0[WCAG10] describes how tocreate accessible Web content.

Accessible AuthoringPractice

"Accessible authoring practices" improve the accessibility of Web content.Both authors and tools engage in accessible authoring practices. For example,authors write clearly, structure their content, and provide navigation aids.Tools automatically generate valid markup and assist authors in providing andmanaging appropriate equivalent alternatives.

Alert

An "alert" draws the author's attention to an event or situation. It mayrequire a response from the author.

Alternative Information (Also:EquivalentAlternative)

Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially thesame function or purpose upon presentation to the user. Equivalent alternativesplay an important role in accessible authoring practices since certain types ofcontent may not be accessible to all users (e.g., video, images, audio, etc.).Authors are encouraged to provide text equivalents for non-text content sincetext may be rendered as synthesized speech for individuals who have visual orlearning disabilities, as braille for individuals who are blind, or asgraphical text for individuals who are deaf or do not have a disability. Formore information about equivalent alternatives, please refer to the Web ContentAccessibility GuidelinesWCAG 1.0[WCAG10].

Attribute

This document uses the term "attribute" as used in SGML and XML ([XML]): Element types may bedefined as having any number of attributes. Some attributes are integral to theaccessibility of content (e.g., the"alt","title",and"longdesc" attributes in HTML).

Auditory Description

An "auditory description" provides information about actions, bodylanguage, graphics, and scene changes in a video. Auditory descriptions arecommonly used by people who are blind or have low vision, although they mayalso be used as a low-bandwidth equivalent on the Web. An auditory descriptionis either a pre-recorded human voice or a synthesized voice (recorded orautomatically generated in real time). The auditory description must besynchronized with the auditory track of a video presentation, usually duringnatural pauses in the auditory track.

Authoring Tool

An "authoring tool" is any software that is used to produce content forpublishing on the Web. Authoring tools include:

• Editing tools specifically designed to produce Web content (e.g., WYSIWYGHTML and XML editors);
• Tools that offer the option of saving material in a Web format (e.g., wordprocessors or desktop publishing packages);
• Tools that transform documents into Web formats (e.g., filters to transformdesktop publishing formats to HTML);
• Tools that produce multimedia, especially where it is intended for use onthe Web (e.g., video production and editing suites, SMIL authoringpackages);
• Tools for site management or site publication, including tools thatautomatically generate Web sites dynamically from a database, on-the-flyconversion and Web site publishing tools;
• Tools for management of layout (e.g., CSS formatting tools).

Captions

"Captions" are essentialtext equivalents for movie audio. Captions consist ofatext transcript of the auditory track ofthe movie (or other video presentation) that is synchronized with the video andauditory tracks. Captions are generally rendered graphically and benefit peoplewho can see but are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or cannot hear the audio.

Conversion Tool

A "conversion tool" is any application or application feature (e.g., "Saveas HTML") that transforms convent in one format to another format (such as amarkup language).

Check for

As used incheckpoint4.1, "check for" can refer to three types of checking:

1. In some instances, an authoring tool will be able to check foraccessibility problems automatically. For example, checking for validity (checkpoint 2.2) ortesting whether an image is the only content of a link.
2. In some cases, the tool will be able to "suspect" or "guess" that there isa problem, but will need confirmation from the author. For example, in makingsure that a sensible reading order is preserved a tool can present a linearizedversion of a page to the author.
3. In some cases, a tool must rely mostly on the author, and can only ask theauthor to check. For example, the tool may prompt the author to verify thatequivalent alternatives for multimedia are appropriate. This is the minimalstandard to be satisfied. Subtle, rather than extensive, prompting is morelikely to be effective in encouraging the author to verify accessibility whereit cannot be done automatically.

Document

A "document" is a series of elements that are defined by amarkup language (e.g., HTML 4 or an XMLapplication).

Editing View

An "editing view" is aview provided by the authoringtool that allows editing.

Element

An "element" is any identifiable object within a document, for example, acharacter, word, image, paragraph or spreadsheet cell. In[HTML4] and[XML], an element refers to a pair of tags and theircontent, or an "empty" tag - one that requires no closing tag or content.

Inform

To "inform" is to make the author aware of an event or situation throughalert,prompt, sound,flash, or other means.

Markup Language

Authors encode information using a "markup language" such as HTML[HTML4], SVG[SVG], or MathML[MATHML].

PresentationMarkup

"Presentation markup" ismarkuplanguage that encodes information about the desired presentation orlayout of the content. For example, Cascading Style Sheets ([CSS1],[CSS2]) can be used to control fonts, colors, auralrendering, and graphical positioning. Presentation markup should not be used inplace ofstructural markup toconvey structure. For example, authors should mark up lists in HTML with properlist markup and style them with CSS (e.g., to control spacing, bullets,numbering, etc.). Authors should not use other CSS or HTML incorrectly to layout content graphically so that it resembles a list.

Prompt

A "prompt" is a request for author input, either information or a decision.A prompt requires author response. For example, atext equivalent entry field prominently displayed inan image insertion dialog would constitute a prompt. Prompts can be used toencourage authors to provide information needed to make content accessible(such asalternative textequivalents).

Property

A "property" is a piece of information about an element, for examplestructural information (e.g., it is item number 7 in a list, or plain text) orpresentation information (e.g., that it is marked as bold, its font size is14). In XML and HTML, properties of an element include the type of the element(e.g.,IMG orDL), the values of itsattributes, and information associated by means of astyle sheet. In a database, properties of a particular element may includevalues of the entry, and acceptable data types for that entry.

StructuralMarkup

"Structural markup" ismarkuplanguage that encodes information about the structural role ofelements of the content. For example, headings, sections, members of a list,and components of a complex diagram can be identified using structural markup.Structural markup should not be used incorrectly to control presentation orlayout. For example, authors should not use theBLOCKQUOTE elementin HTML[HTML4] toachieve an indentation visual layout effect. Structural markup should be usedcorrectly to communicate the roles of the elements of the content andpresentation markup should beused separately to control the presentation and layout.

Transcript

A "transcript" is a text representation of sounds in an audio clip or anauditory track of a multimedia presentation. A "collated text transcript" for avideo combines (collates) caption text with text descriptions of videoinformation (descriptions of the actions, body language, graphics, and scenechanges of the visual track). Collated text transcripts are essential forindividuals who are deaf-blind and rely on braille for access to movies andother content.

Transformation

A "transformation" is a process that changes a document or object intoanother, equivalent, object according to a discrete set of rules. This includesconversion tools, software thatallows the author to change theDTD defined for the original document to anotherDTD, and the ability to change the markup of lists andconvert them into tables.

User Agent

A "user agent" is software that retrieves and renders Web content. Useragents include browsers, plug-ins for a particular media type, and someassistive technologies.

View

Authoring tools may render the same content in a variety of ways; eachrendering is called a "view." Some authoring tools will have several differenttypes of view, and some allow views of several documents at once. For instance,one view may show raw markup, a second may show a structured tree, a third mayshow markup with rendered objects while a final view shows an example of howthe document may appear if it were to be rendered by a particular browser. Atypical way to distinguish views in a graphic environment is to place each in aseparate window.

4.Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the following people who have contributed through review andcomment: Jim Allan, Denis Anson, Kitch Barnicle, Kynn Bartlett, Harvey Bingham,Judy Brewer, Carl Brown, Dick Brown, Wendy Chisholm, Aaron Cohen, Rob Cumming,Daniel Dardailler, Mark Day, BK Delong, Martin Dürst, Kelly Ford, JamieFox, Edna French, Sylvain Galineau, Al Gilman, Jon Gunderson, Eric Hansen,Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Brian Kelly, Marja-Riitta Koivunen, Sho Kuwamoto,Jaap van Lelieveld, Susan Lesch, William Loughborough, Greg Lowney, KarenMcCall, Thierry Michel, Charles Oppermann, Dave Pawson, Dave Poehlman, LorettaReid, Bruce Roberts, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Bridie Saccocio, JaninaSajka, John Slatin, Jim Thatcher, Irène Vatton, Gregg Vanderheiden,Pawan Vora, Jason White, and Lauren Wood.

5.References

For the latest version of anyW3C specification please consult the list ofW3CTechnical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR.

[ATAG10-CHECKLIST]

An appendix to this document lists all of the checkpoints, sorted bypriority. The checklist is available in eithertabularform (at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/atag10-chktable) orlist form (athttp://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/atag10-chklist).

[ATAG10-TECHS]

"Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Treviranus,J. Richards, I. Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile eds. The latest version isavailable at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10-TECHS.

[CONFORMANCE]

"Conformance iconsforATAG 1.0." Information about ATAG 1.0 conformance icons isavailable at http://www.w3.org/WAI/ATAG10-Conformance.

[CSS1]

"CSS, level 1Recommendation," B. Bos and H. Wium Lie, eds., 17 December 1996, revised 11January 1999. This CSS1 Recommendation ishttp://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111. Thelatest version of CSS1 is available athttp://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1.Note: CSS1 has been supersededby CSS2. Tools should implement the CSS2 cascade.

[CSS2]

"CSS, level 2Recommendation," B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, C. Lilley, and I. Jacobs, eds., 12May 1998. This CSS2 Recommendation ishttp://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512. Thelatest version of CSS2 is available athttp://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2.

[HTML4]

"HTML 4.01Recommendation," D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, eds., 24 December1999. This HTML 4.01 Recommendation ishttp://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224. Thelatest version of HTML 4 is available athttp://www.w3.org/TR/html4.

[MATHML]

"MathematicalMarkup Language," P. Ion and R. Miner, eds., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July1999. This MathML 1.0 Recommendation ishttp://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-MathML-19990707. Thelatest version of MathML 1.0 is availableat http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.

[RDF10]

"ResourceDescription Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification," O. Lassila, R.Swick, eds. The 22 February 1999 Recommendation ishttp://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. Thelatest version of RDF 1.0 isavailable at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax.

[SVG]

"Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0Specification (Working Draft)," J. Ferraiolo, ed. The latest version of theSVG specification is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG.

[UAAG10-TECHS]

"Techniques for User AgentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0," J. Gunderson, and I. Jacobs, eds. Thelatest version of Techniques for UserAgent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available athttp://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10-TECHS/.

[WCAG10]

"Web ContentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs,eds., 5 May 1999. This Recommendation ishttp://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505. The latest version of theWeb Content Accessibility Guidelines1.0" is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/.

[WCAG10-TECHS]

"Techniques for Web ContentAccessibility Guidelines 1.0," W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs,eds. Thelatest version ofTechniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available athttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/.

[XML]

"The Extensible MarkupLanguage (XML) 1.0," T. Bray, J. Paoli, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, eds., 10February 1998. This XML 1.0 Recommendation ishttp://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210. Thelatest version of the XML specification isavailable at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml.