Copyright © 2004 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
This document is an appendix to the W3C "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (W3C Working Draft 25 June 2004). 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.
A list version of the checkpoints is also available.
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.
This draft refers to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for specification of accessible content and refers non-normatively to the Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility [ATAG20-TECHS]. The working group has provided a reference called ATAG 2.0 References to WCAG [WCAG-REFS] mapping the ATAG checkpoints to WCAG 1.0 and the January 2003 draft of WCAG 2.0, currently a W3C Working Draft.
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.
Every checkpoint in ATAG 2.0 has been assigned a priority levels to indicate the importance of the checkpoint in satisfying the guidelines and a set of success criteria that an authoring tool must meet before it is considered to have met the checkpoint. The priority of a checkpoint determines whether it must be met by a tool in order for that tool to achieve a particular ATAG 2.0 conformance level. The priority levels are:
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.
| Checkpoint | Yes | No | N/A |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 Allow the display preferences of the authoring interface to be changed without affecting the document markup. (Techniques for 1.3) | |||
| 2.1 Ensure that markup which the tool automatically generates is valid for the language the tool is generating. (Techniques for 2.1) | |||
| 2.2 Support formats that enable the creation of WCAG-conformant content. (Techniques for 2.2) | |||
| 2.3 Ensure that the author can produce accessible content in the markup language(s) supported by the tool. (Techniques for 2.3) |
| Checkpoint | Yes | No | N/A |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.4 Ensure that the authoring interface enables the author to navigate the structure and perform structure-based edits. (Techniques for 1.4) | |||
| 1.5 Ensure the authoring interface allows the author to search within the editing views. (Techniques for 1.5) | |||
| 2.4 Ensure that the tool preserves all unrecognized markup and accessibility information during transformations, and conversions. (Techniques for 2.4) | |||
| 3.4 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. (Techniques for 3.4) | |||
| 3.7 Document all features of the tool that promote the production of accessible content. (Techniques for 3.7) | |||
| 3.8 Ensure that all documentation demonstrates authoring practices and workflow processes that result in accessible content. (Techniques for 3.8) | |||
| 4.1 Ensure that the most accessible option for an authoring task is given priority. (Techniques for 4.1) | |||
| 4.2 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair and documentation functions are configurable. (Techniques for 4.2) | |||
| 4.3 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are integrated into the workflow of Web Content development. (Techniques for 4.3) |
| Checkpoint | Yes | No | N/A |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents. (Techniques for 3.5) | |||
| 3.6 Provide the author with a summary of the document's accessibility status. (Techniques for 3.6) | |||
| 4.4 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are naturally integrated into the appearance and interactive style of the tool. (Techniques for 4.4) | |||
| 4.5 Ensure that accessibility prompting, checking, repair functions and documentation are configurable. (Techniques for 4.5) |
| Checkpoint | Yes | No | N/A |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5 Ensure that when the tool automatically generates content it conforms to the WCAG. (Techniques for 2.5) | |||
| 2.6 Ensure that all pre-authored content for the tool conforms to the WCAG. (Techniques for 2.6) | |||
| 3.1 Prompt and assist the author to create accessible content. (Techniques for 3.1) | |||
| 3.2 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems. (Techniques for 3.2) | |||
| 3.3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. (Techniques for 3.3) |
| Checkpoint | Yes | No | N/A |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Ensure that the authoring interface follows applicable software accessibility guidelines. (Techniques for 1.1) | |||
| 1.2 Ensure that the authoring interface enables accessible editing of element and object properties. (Techniques for 1.2) |