Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility

Abstract

This document is part of a series of accessibility documents published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative.

Status of this document

This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or rendered obsolete by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". This is work in progress and does not imply endorsement by either W3C or its member organizations.

The goals of the WAI AU Working Group are discussed in the WAI AU charter.

Please send comments about this document to the public mailing list: w3c-wai-au@w3.org, archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au

A list of the current AU Working Group members is available.

1 Introduction

1.1 How the Guidelines are organized.

This document includes guidelines which are general principles of accessible design. 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 for authoring tools to follow the guideline. Each checkpoint definition includes:

• The checkpoint number;
• The statement of the checkpoint;
• The priority of the checkpoint;
• In some cases informative notes, clarifying examples, or cross references to related guidelines or checkpoints;
• Example techniques, suggestions, and further information about strategies which may be used to meet the checkpoint.

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

The Techniques provided in this document are suggestions for how implementation might be done, or where further information can be found. They are informative only, and other strategies may be used to meet the checkpoint as well as, or in place of, those discussed.

1.2 Checkpoint priorities

Each checkpoint has a priority level. The priority level reflects the impact of the checkpoint in meeting the goals of this document. These goals are:

1. The authoring tool is accessible
2. The authoring tool generates accessible content by default
3. The authoring tool encourages the creation of accessible content

The three priority levels are assigned as follows:

[Priority 1]

If the checkpoint is essential to meeting those goals

[Priority 2]

If the checkpoint is important to meeting those goals

[Priority 3]

If the checkpoint is beneficial to meeting those goals

2 Guidelines

Guideline 1. Support accessible authoring practices

Methods for ensuring accessible markup vary with different markup languages. If markup is automatically generated, many authors will be unaware of the accessibility status of the final product unless they expend extra effort to make appropriate corrections by hand. Since many authors are unfamiliar with accessibility, the onus is on the authoring tool to generate accessible markup, and where appropriate, to guide the author in producing accessible content.

Many applications feature the ability to convert documents from other formats (e.g., Rich Text Format) into a markup format, such as HTML. Markup changes may also be made to facilitate efficient editing and manipulation. These processes are usually hidden from the user's view and may create inaccessible markup or cause inaccessible markup to be produced.

Checkpoints:

1.1 Ensure the author can implement accessible authoring practices for the markup language(s) supported by the tool. [Priority 1]

• Provide options for accessibility information such as equivalent alternatives to be included whenever an object is added to a document. See also 3.1
• Allow direct source editing (but note also the requirements in 1.4 and 5.1)
• General: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WAI-WEBCONTENT]
• Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS]
• Some specific guidance for HTML 4.0 is available at HTML4 Accessibility Improvements [HTML4-ACCESS]. Further information is available in the HTML 4.0 specification itself [HTML40]
• Some accessibility features of, and accessible authoring practices for CSS2 are outlined in CSS2 Accessibility Improvements [CSS2-ACCESS]

1.2 Produce content that conforms to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. [Priority 1 for level-A conformance, Priority 2 for double-A conformance, Priority 3 for triple-A conformance]

• Use consistent document structures. For a tool which does site-wide management provide consistent navigation systems and document structures.
• Include markup which supports alternatives for media-dependent elements or content.
• Do not use structural markup for presentational effects, or presentation markup for known structures. For example, use list markup of an appropriate type rather than creating multiple line paragraphs and beginning each line with an image of a bullet, and do not use list markup for an indentation effect.

1.3 Ensure that templates provided by the tool conform to W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. [Priority 1 for level-A conformance, Priority 2 for double-A conformance, Priority 3 for triple-A conformance]

• Produce accessible representations for site maps generated by the authoring tool.
• Provide equivalent alternatives for all non-text content (images, audio, etc)
• Use consistent navigation schemata
• Ensure that event-handlers for scripts are device-independent
• Ensure that color schemes provide sufficient contrast for people or technology with poor color separation
• Ensure that the natural language of the template is identified
• Provide navigation bars
• Provide keyboard shortcuts for important links, etc.

1.4 Preserve all accessibility information during authoring, transformations and conversions. [Priority 1]

• When transforming a table to a list or list of lists, ensure that table headings are transformed into headings, and summary or caption information is retained as rendered content. (This transformation is not necessarily cleanly reversible)
• When importing images with associated descriptions to an HTML document make the descriptions available for use as longdesc, alt, or title
• When converting from a word-processor format to HTML ensure that headings and list items are transformed into appropriate headings of the appropriate level, and list items in the appropriate type of list (rather than as plain text with font formatting)
• Do not transform text into images - use style sheets for presentation control, or an XML application such as Scalable Vector Graphics that keeps the text as text. If this is not possible, ensure that the text that is converted is available as "alt-text" for the image.
• Ensure that the tool recognizes and preserves elements that are defined in the relevant specification(s) even if it is unable to render them in a publishing view or preview mode. This is relevant for WYSIWYG page authoring tools, tools that handle image formats which allow the incorporation of titles, descriptions, etc.

Guideline 2. Generate standard markup

Conformance with standards promotes interoperability and accessibility. Where applicable use W3C recommendations, which have been reviewed to ensure accessibility and interoperability. If there are no applicable W3C Recommendations, use a published standard that enables accessibility.

Checkpoints:

2.1 Use applicable W3C Recommendations. [Priority 2]

These specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that they do not compromise, and where possible they enhance, accessibility

• When creating documents or document types, make full use of W3C Recommendations (Specifications that have been approved by the W3C. These specifications have undergone review specifically to ensure that they do not compromise, and where possible they enhance, accessibility). For example when creating mathematical content for the Web use MathML rather than another markup language. Use applicable HTML structures.
• Ensure that the tool recognizes and preserves elements which are defined in the relevant specification(s) even if it is unable to render them. This is particularly important for WYSIWYG editing tools.

2.2 Ensure that markup is generated in accordance with a published specification [Priority 1]

This is necessary for user agents to be able to transform Web content to a presentation appropriate to a particular user's needs.

• Produce valid HTML/XML
• Publish proprietary DTDs on the Web, to allow documents to be validated.
• Use namespaces and schemas to make documents which can be automatically transformed to a known document type..

2.3 Ensure the tool produces markup in a language that enables accessibility [Priority 1]

This is relevant both to the use of an existing document markup language, and to one which is created or extended for a specific purpose..

• New document types are constantly being developed, and in many cases offer improvements to the structure and utility of Web content. In implementing a new or extended document type it is important to ensure that a tool does not remove access to information that had been inherent in the base document type.

  An HTML example of a document type that contravenes this checkpoint is a FRAMESET used without NOFRAMES - it precludes access to the underlying information, whereas NOFRAMES provides a means to access the information contained within the FRAMESET.

  The same can apply to a reduced DTD. For example, producing a DTD that did not include the "alt" attribute for IMG, or effectively working to such a DTD by not implementing a means to include the attribute, compromises the accessibility of any included IMG elements.

• Do not publish Web content in markup languages which do not allow for alternative information to be included for media-specific presentations (such as images or video, sound, etc).
• The Web Accessibility Initiative's Protocols and Formats group have a draft set of notes about creating accessible document types [XMLGL].

Guideline 3. Ensure that no accessibility information is missing

Generating equivalent information, such as textual alternatives for images and audio descriptions of video, can be one of the most challenging aspects of Web design. Along with the necessity for structural information it is a cornerstone of accessible design, allowing information to be presented in a way most appropriate for the needs of the user without constraining the creativity of the author.

Automating the mechanics of this process, by prompting authors to include the relevant information at appropriate times, can greatly ease the burden for authors. Where such information can be mechanically determined (e.g., the function of icons in an automatically-generated navigation bar, or expansion of acronyms from a dictionary) and offered as a choice for the author the tool will assist the author, at the same time as it reinforces the need for such information and the author's role in ensuring that it is used appropriately in each instance.

Checkpoints:

3.1 Prompt the author to provide alternative information (e.g., captions, expanded versions of acronyms, long descriptions of graphics). (Priority 1 for alternative information that is [Web-Content-Priority-1], Priority 2 for alternative information that is [Web-Content-Priority-2], Priority 3 for alternative information that is [Web-Content-Priority-3])

• Provide an author with the option of specifying alternative information, or electing to insert null alternative information for images, audio, video. Default to an accessibility error such as no "alt" attribute for images.
• Recognize collections of upper-case letters (in languages that have case) and prompt the author for an expansion, to be provided in markup.
• In Japanese, prompt the author for kana text that can be used as a ruby for unusual or complex kanji.
• Prompt the author for header information for tabular data.
• Prompt the author (and allow them to specify a default suggestion) for the language of a document.
• See also checkpoint 3.4

3.2 Do not insert automatically generated (e.g., the filename) or place-holder (e.g., "image") equivalent text, except in cases where human-authored text has been written for an object whose function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]

For example, in an automatically generated navigation bar, it is clear that "search" is appropriate for a button linked to a search function

• Items used throughout a Website, such as graphical navigation bars, should have standard alternative information. However the author should be prompted to edit or approve this the first time it is used in a site, and when the destination of the links is changed by the author.
• If the author has not specified alternative text for an IMG, or specified that none is required, default to having no alt attribute, so that an accessibility problem will be noted (see also checkpoint 4.1 Check for and alert the author to accessibility problems. (Priority 1 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-1], Priority 2 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-2], Priority 3 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-3]) )

3.3 Provide pre-written alternative information for all multimedia files packaged with the authoring tool. [Priority 2]

Note: This text should be used for input field default, but not for automatic insertion.

• Use formats that allow for accessible annotation, such as PNG.
• Provide long descriptions, and associated text files with appropriate "alt-text" in clip-art collections.
• Provide video description files with prepackaged video.
• Provide text caption files for prepackaged audio, or video with audio track(s).
• Including pre-written descriptions for all multimedia files (e.g., clip-art) packaged with the tool would save users time and effort, cause a significant number of professionally written descriptions to circulate on the Web, provide users with convenient models to emulate when they write their own descriptions and show authors the importance of description writing.
• See also 3.4

3.4 Provide a mechanism to manage alternative information for multimedia objects, that retains and offers for editing pre-written or previously linked alternative information. [Priority 3]

• Maintain a database registry that associates object identity information with alternative information. Whenever an object is used and alternative information is provided, ask the author whether they want to add the object (or identifying information) and the alternative information to the database. In the case of alt-text the alternate information might be stored directly while a longer descriptions such as video captions would be entered as pointers to external files. Allow different alternative information to be associated with a single object.
• Allow authors to make keyword searches of a description database (to simplify the task of finding relevant images, sound files, etc.). A paper describing a method to create searchable databases for video and audio files is available (refer to [SEARCHABLE]).
• Suggest pre-written descriptions as default text whenever one of the associated files is inserted into the author's document.
• This checkpoint is prioritized as a level 3, meaning that in itself, it does not have a critical effect on an authoring tool's likelihood of producing accessible mark-up. However, several limited extensions to this alternative information mechanism (ACM) have the potential to simultaneously meet several higher priority checkpoints and dramatically improve the usability of an access aware authoring tool. In particular:
  1. The ACM should maintain a list of associations between object file names and authored responses to prompts for alternative information (as per checkpoint 2.3.1 [Priority 1]). The alternative information may take the form of short strings (i.e. "alt"-text) or pointers to descriptive files (i.e., "longdesc", transcripts, etc.). Multiple associations for the same object for different languages or contexts should also be handled.
  2. The ACM would offer the associated alternative information as a default whenever the appropriate associated object is selected for insertion. If no previous association is found, the field should be left empty (i.e., no purely rule-generated alternative information should be used). Note: the term "default" implies that the alternative information is offered for the author's approval. The term does not imply that the default alternative information is automatically placed without the author's approval. Such automatic placement may only occur when in situations where the function of the object is known with certainty, as per checkpoint 2.3.5 [Priority 1]. Such a situation might arise in the case of a "navigation bar builder" that places a navigation bar at the bottom of every page on a site. In this case, it would be appropriate to use the same "alt"-text automatically for every instance of a particular image (with the same target) on every page.
  3. The alternative information mechanism should be closely integrated with the pre-written alternative information provided for all packaged multimedia files, as per checkpoint 2.3.4 [Priority 2]. This would allow the alternative information to be automatically retrieved whenever the author selected one of the packaged objects for insertion. An important benefit of the system would be the ease of adding a keyword search capability that would allow efficient location of multimedia based on its alternative information.

Guideline 4. Provide methods of checking and correcting inaccessible content

Many authoring tools allow authors to create documents with little or no knowledge about the underlying markup. To ensure accessibility, authoring tools must be designed so that they may automatically identify inaccessible markup, and enable its correction even when the markup itself is hidden from the author.

In supporting the creation of accessible Web content, authoring tools should take into account the differing authoring styles of their users. In general, authors will prefer to be able to configure their tools to support their working style. Tools that allow such configuration can help authors to feel that accessible authoring is a natural practice (see also the previous guideline) rather than an intrusion on their normal work pattern. For example some users may prefer to be alerted to problems when they occur, whereas others may prefer to perform a check after the document is completed. This is analogous to programming environments that allow users to decide whether to check for correct code during editing or at compile time.

Note that many assistive technologies used with browsers and multimedia players are only able to provide access to Web documents that use valid mark-up. Therefore validation of mark-up is an essential aspect of authoring tool accessibility.

Checkpoints:

4.1 Check for and alert the author to accessibility problems. (Priority 1 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-1], Priority 2 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-2], Priority 3 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-3])

• Include alerts for [Web-Content-Priority 1] checkpoints in the default configuration.
• Highlight problems detected when documents are opened, when an editing or insertion action is completed, or while an author is editing.
• Where there is a change in the character set (or subset) used, prompt the author to identify whether there has been a change in language
• Alert authors to accessibility problems when saving.
• Access concerns can be highlighted using strategies similar to spell checking within a word processor. Access alerts within the document can be linked to context sensitive help.
• Allow users to choose different alert levels based on the priority of authoring accessibility recommendations.
• If interruptive warnings are used, provide a means for the author to quickly set the warning to non-obtrusive to avoid frustration.
• A view that renders the document as it might appear without technologies such as style sheets and images enabled, or the ability to turn those features off and on in the editing view, will give an author some idea of whether a document's logical order has been correctly preserved, whether alternative text is appropriate, etc.
• The WAI Evaluation and Repair group [WAI-ER] is developing a document that discusses which aspects of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines can be automatically tested. A draft of that document is available [Auto-test].

4.2 Assist authors in correcting accessibility problems. (Priority 1 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-1], Priority 2 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-2], Priority 3 for accessibility problems that are [Web-Content-Priority-3])

• Do this in a way that is consistent with the look and feel of the authoring tool.
• Provide context sensitive-help for accessibility errors. See also 6 Promote accessibility in help and documentation
• Where there are site-wide errors, to make correction more efficient the author can be given the choice to make site-wide changes or corrections. For example this may be appropriate for a common error in markup, but may not be appropriate in providing alt text that is appropriate for one use of na image but completely inappropriate for the other uses of the image on the same site (or even the same page).
• Allow authors to control both the nature and timing of the correction process.

4.3 Allow the author to override any removal of unrecognized markup. [Priority 2]

Notes:

1. The author may have included or imported markup that is not recognized by the tool, but which enhances accessibility.
2. This need not be the default setting.

• Provide a summary of all automated structural changes that may affect accessibility.
• Provide options for the author to confirm or override removal of markup on a change-by-change basis or as a batch process.
• Do not change the DTD without notifying the author.

4.4 Provide the author with a summary of the document accessibility status. [Priority 3]

• Provide a summary of accessibility problems remaining by type and/or by number.

4.5 Allow the author to transform presentation markup that is misused to convey structure into structural markup, and to transform presentation markup that is stylistic into style sheet markup.. [Priority 3]

• Some examples of transformations include: HTML table-based layout into CSS, HTML br to p, HTML (deprecated) FONT into heuristically or author-determined structure, Word processor styles to Web styles, HTML deprecated presentational markup into CSS, SPAN into RUBY, MathML presentational markup to semantic markup.
• Allow the user to define transformations for imported documents that have presentation, rather than structural, markup.
• Allow the user to create style rules based on the formatting properties of an element, and then apply the rule to other elements in the document, to assist conversion of documents to the use of style sheets
• Include pre-written transformations to rationalize multiple tables, and to transform (deprecated) presentation HTML into style sheets.
• Remember that accessibility information, including attributes or properties of the elements being transformed, must be preserved - see 1.4

Guideline 5. Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall "look and feel"

When a new feature is added to an existing software tool without proper integration, the result is often an obvious discontinuity. Differing color schemes, fonts, interaction styles and even application stability can be factors affecting user acceptance of the new feature.

Checkpoints:

5.1 Make generation of accessible content a naturally integrated part of the authoring process. [Priority 1]

• Ensure that author can utilize the tool's accessible authoring features by the same interaction styles used for other features in the program. For example, if the tool makes use of onscreen symbols such as underlines or coloration change rather than dialogs for conveying information, then the same interface techniques should be used to convey accessibility information.
• The same fonts, text sizes, colors, symbols, etc. that characterize other program features should also characterize those dealing with accessibility.
• Include considerations for accessibility - such as the "alt" and "longdesc" attributes of the IMG element - right below the "src" attribute in a dialogue box, not buried behind an "Advanced..." button.
• Allow efficient and fast access to accessibility-related settings with as few steps as possible needed to make any changes that will generate accessible content.
• The accessibility features should be designed as integral components of the authoring tool application, not plug-ins or other peripheral components that need to be separately obtained, installed, configured or executed
• The default installation of the authoring tool should include all accessibility features enabled. The author may have the option to disable these features later on.
• A help page that describes how to make an image map should include adding alternative information for each AREA in the MAP as part of the process. Any examples of code should give either block content with text links, or AREA elements that all have relevant ALT attribute values.
• When a user creates a frameset, suggest the main content page and a navigation bar as the content for NOFRAMES.

5.2 Ensure that the highest-priority accessible authoring practices are among the most obvious and easily initiated by the author. [Priority 1]

• When the user has selected text to format, the use of CSS should be emphasized rather than FONT.
• Highlight the most accessible solutions when presenting choices for the author.
• If there is more than one option for the author, and one option is more accessible than another, place the more accessible option first and make it the default. For example, when requesting alternative information for an image, offer an unchecked option for empty alternative (i.e., alt="", implying the image has no real function) with the cursor positioned in the text entry for an "alt" value (and if available provide the appropriate value from the "alt text registry" - see 3.4), rather than offering the filename as a default suggestion, or selecting the null "alt" value as a default.

Guideline 6. Promote accessibility in help and documentation

The issues surrounding Web accessibility are often unknown to Web authors. Help and documentation should explain accessibility problems and solutions, with examples.

Checkpoints:

6.1 Integrate accessible authoring practices in all applicable help topics. [Priority 1]

• Ensure that accessibility solutions are present in all help text descriptions of markup practices (e.g., IMG elements should appear with "alt-text" and a "longdesc" attribute wherever appropriate).
• Ensure that electronic documentation complies with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]
• Link from help text to any automated correction utilities.
• Provide examples of accessible design practices in online tutorials.
• Link those mechanisms used to identify accessibility problems (e.g., icons, outlining or other emphasis within the user interface) to help files.

6.2 Explain the accessible authoring practices supported by the authoring tool. [Priority 1]

• Provide examples of all accessibility solutions in help text, including those of lower Web-Content-Priority.
• Include help documentation for all accessible authoring practices supported by the tool.
• Implement context-sensitive help for all special accessibility terms as well as tasks related to accessibility.
• Document the tool's conformance to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-AUTOOLS].
• Include current versions of, or links to relevant specifications in the documentation (e.g. HTML 4.0 [HTML4], CSS [CSS1],[CSS2])
• Include a tutorial specifically on checking for and correcting Web accessibility problems.
• Link to or provide URIs for more information on accessible Web authoring, such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT], and other accessibility-related resources.

6.3 Ensure that all documentation examples show how to produce content that conforms to W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. [Priority 1 for level-A conformance, Priority 2 for double-A conformance, Priority 3 for triple-A conformance]

Note: An example may be built from several parts, some of which are not themselves conformant, so long as those parts are identified and linked to a conforming example.

• Ensure that documentation examples conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT].
• Clearly label any examples that display practices that reduce accessibility.

6.4 Emphasize the universal benefit of accessible design. [Priority 3]

• In help text, when explaining the accessibility barriers of non-deprecated elements, emphasize appropriate solutions rather than explicitly discouraging the use of the element.
• Explain the importance of utilizing accessibility features generally and for specific instances.
• Take a broad view of accessibility-related practices; for example, do not refer to ALT text as being "for blind users" but rather as "for users who are not viewing images".
• Avoid labelling accessibility features of the tool with a "handicapped" icon, as this can give the impression that accessible design practices only benefit disabled users.
• In help text, emphasize accessibility features that benefit multiple groups. In particular the principles of supporting flexible display and control choices have obvious advantages for the emergence of hands free, eyes-free, voice-activated browsing devices such as Web phone, the large number of slow Web connections, and Web users who prefer text-only browsing to avoid "image clutter".

Guideline 7. Ensure that the Authoring Tool is Accessible to Authors with Disabilities

The authoring tool is a software program with standard user interface elements and as such should follow relevant user interface accessibility guidelines. In addition to applicable general interface accessibility guidelines there are interface design considerations that are specific to Web authoring tools.

One such consideration is that the author may need a different presentation to edit the Web content than the one they wish ultimately to be displayed. This implies display preferences that do not manifest themselves in the ultimate markup or style declarations.

Another consideration relates to the process of navigating and manipulating the document while authoring. Authoring Web content requires editing a potentially large and complex document. In order to edit a document the author must be able to locate and select specific elements, efficiently traverse the document, and quickly find and mark insertion points. Authors who use screen readers, refreshable braille displays, or screen magnifiers can make limited use (if at all) of visual artifacts that communicate the structure of the document and act as sign posts when traversing the document. Authors who use keyboard and mouse alternatives must make tiring repetitions of movement commands to navigate the document. There are strategies that make it easier to navigate and manipulate a marked-up document. Using the structure of a Web document, the author can be given a view of the document which allows the author to both get a good sense of the overall document and to navigate that document more easily.

Checkpoints:

7.1 Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and conventions (Priority 1 for standards and conventions which are essential to accessibility, Priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility, Priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility). [Priority 1]

• Guidelines for specific platforms include
  1. "IBM Guidelines for Writing Accessible Applications Using 100% Pure Java" [JAVA-ACCESS] R. Schwerdtfeger, IBM Special Needs Systems.
  2. "An ICE Rendezvous Mechanism for X Window System Clients" [ICE-RAP], W. Walker. A description of how to use the ICE and RAP protocols for X Window clients.
  3. "Information for Developers About Microsoft Active Accessibility" [MS-ACCESS] Microsoft Corporation.
  4. "The Inter-Client communication conventions manual" [ICCCM]. A protocol for communication between clients in the X Window system.
  5. "Lotus Notes accessibility guidelines" [NOTES-ACCESS] IBM Special Needs Systems.
  6. "Java accessibility guidelines and checklist" [JAVA-CHECKLIST] IBM Special Needs Systems.
  7. "The Java Tutorial. Trail: Creating a GUI with JFC/Swing" [JAVA-TUT]. An online tutorial that describes how to use the Swing Java Foundation Class to build an accessible User Interface.
  8. "Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines" [APPLE-HI] Apple Computer Inc.
  9. "The Microsoft Windows Guidelines for Accessible Software Design" [MS-SOFTWARE]. Warning! This is a "self-extracting archive", an application that will probably only run on MS-Windows systems.
• Guidelines for specific software types include
  1. "The Three-tions of Accessibility-Aware HTML Authoring Tools" [ACCESS-AWARE], J. Richards.
  2. "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (Working Draft)" J. Gunderson, I. Jacobs eds. (This is a work in progress) [WAI-USERAGENT]
• General guidelines for producing accessible software include:
  1. "Accessibility for applications designers" [MS-ENABLE] Microsoft Corporation.
  2. "Application Software Design Guidelines" [TRACE-REF] compiled by G. Vanderheiden. A thorough reference work.
  3. "Designing for Accessibility" [SUN-DESIGN] Eric Bergman and Earl Johnson. This paper discusses specific disabilities including those related to hearing, vision, and cognitive function.
  4. "EITAAC Desktop Software standards" [EITAAC] Electronic Information Technology Access Advisory (EITACC) Committee.
  5. "Requirements for Accessible Software Design" [ED-DEPT] US Department of Education, version 1.1 March 6, 1997.
  6. "Software Accessibility" [IBM-ACCESS] IBM Special Needs Systems
  7. "Towards Accessible Human-Computer Interaction" [SUN-HCI] Eric Bergman, Earl Johnson, Sun Microsytems 1995. A substantial paper, with a valuable print bibliography.
  8. "What is Accessible Software" [WHAT-IS] James W. Thatcher, Ph.D., IBM, 1997. This paper gives a short example-based introduction to the difference between software that is accessible, and software that can be used by some assistive technologies.
• User Interfaces are sometimes built as Web content, and as such should follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT] (See also 1 Support accessible authoring practices )
• The following are common requirements for producing accessible software. This list does not necessarily cover all requirements for all platforms, and items may not be applicable to some software.:

  Following Standards

  • Draw text and objects using system conventions
  • Make mouse, keyboard, and API activation of events consistent
  • Provide a User Interface that is "familiar" (to system standards, or across platform)
  • Use system standard indirections and APIs wherever possible
  • Ensure all dialogs, subwindows, etc meet these requirements
  • Avoid blocking assistive technology functions (sticky/mouse keys, screenreader controls, etc) where possible

  Configurability

  • Allow users to create profiles
  • Allow control of timing, colors, sizes, input/output devices and media
  • Allow users to reshape the user interface - customize toolbars, keyboard commands, etc

  Input Device Independence

  • Provide Keyboard access to all functions
  • Document all keyboard bindings
  • Provide customizable keyboard shortcuts for common functions
  • Provide logical navigation order for the keyboard interface.
  • Avoid repetitive keying wherever possible
  • Provide mouse access to functions where possible

  Icons, Graphics, Sounds

  • Provide visual (text) equivalents for sound warnings
  • Allow sounds to be turned off
  • Provide text equivalents for images/icons
  • Use customizable (or removable) colors/patterns
  • Ensure high contrast is available (as default setting)
  • Provide text equivalents for all audio
  • Use icons that are resizeable or available in multiple sizes

  Layout

  • Do not rely on color alone for meaning. Use color for differentiation, in combination with accessible cues (text equivalents, natural language, etc)
  • Position related text labels and objects consistently, and in an obvious manner (labels before objects is recommended)
  • Group related controls
  • Ensure default window sizes fit in screen
  • Allow for window resizing (very small to very large)

  User Focus

  • Clearly identify the user focus (and expose it via API)
  • Unexpected events should not be caused by viewing content (for example by moving the focus to a new point)
  • Allow user control of timing - delays, time-dependent response, etc
  • Allow for navigation between as well as within windows

7.2 Allow the author to change the editing view without affecting the document markup. [Priority 1]

This allows the author to edit the document according to their personal requirements, without changing the way the document looks or is rendered when published.

• In representing the source structure of a document mark elements with textual brackets rather than purely graphic representations. For example "</>" is regarded as a textual bracket, since it is made of character elements.
• Allow the user to create audio style sheets using a visual representation rather than an audio one (with accessible representation, of course).
• An authoring tool that offers a "rendered view" of a document, such as a browser preview mode, may provide an editing view whose presentation can be controlled independently of the rendered view.
• A "WYSIWYG" editor may allow an author to specify a local style sheet, that will override the "published" style of the document in the editing view.

7.3 Render an accessible equivalent of each element property. [Priority 1]

• For a site management tool, allow the author to display a site map in text form (e.g., as a structured tree file).
• Allow the author to specify that filenames or alternative information are rendered in place of images or other multimedia content while editing.
• Include attributes / properties of elements in a view of the structure.
• Provide access to a list of properties via a "context menu" for each element.
• Graphically represented elements cannot be identified by assistive technologies that translate text to braille, speech, or large print, unless there is appropriate information available as text. For example, some HTML authoring tools display start and end tags as graphics.

7.4 Allow the author to edit all properties of each element and object in an accessible fashion. [Priority 1]

• An authoring tool may offer several editing views of the same document, such as a source mode which allows direct editing of all properties.
• Allow the author to individually edit each attribute of the elements in an HTML or XML document, for example through a menu. Note that this must include the ability to add values for attributes which are not present, as well as changing current values of attributes.

7.5 Ensure the editing view allows navigation via the structure of the document. [Priority 1]

• Allow the author to navigate via an "outline" or "structure" of the document being edited. This is particularly important for people who are using a slow interface such as a small braille device, or speech output, or a single switch input device. It is equivalent to the ability provided by a mouse interface to move rapidly around the document.
• To minimally satisfy this checkpoint, allow navigation from element to element.
• In a hypertext document allow the author to navigate among links and active elements of a document.
• Allow the author to navigate regions of an image, or the document tree for an image expressed in a structured language such as Scalable Vector Graphics [SVG]

7.6 Enable editing of the structure of the document. [Priority 2]

• An authoring tool may offer a structured tree view of the document, allowing the author to move among, select and cut, copy or paste elements of the document.
• A WYSIWYG tool may allow elements to be selected, and copied or moved while retaining their structure.
• A tool may allow transformation from one element type to another, such as
  1. HTML paragraphs to lists and back
  2. HTML br to p
  3. SMIL transformations between switch, excl and par
  4. HTML (deprecated) FONT into heuristically determined structure
  5. Lists of lists to tables and back
  6. MathML transformations between semantic and presentation markup
  7. Transforming SVG g elements to symbol
  8. Giving a structural role to a part of an element, such as an SVG g or an HTML p

7.7 Allow the author to search within editing views. [Priority 2]

• Search functions are already present in almost every text and hypertext editing tools. The simplest allow searching for a sequence of characters, while more powerful searches can include the ability to perform searches which are case sensitive or case-insensitive, the ability to replace a search string, the ability to repeat a previous search to find the next or previous occurrence, or to select multiple occurrences with a single search.
• The ability to search for a particular type of structure is useful in a structured document, structured image such as a complex SVG image, etc.
• In an image editor the ability to select an area by properties (such as colour, or closeness of colour) is useful. This is common in middle range and high end image processing software.
• The ability to search a database for particular content, or to search a collection of files at once (a simple implementation of the latter is the Unix function "grep") is an important tool in managing large collections, especially those which are dynamically converted into Web content.
• The use of metadata (as per the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT]) can allow for very complex searching of large collections, or of timed presentations. See also the paper "A Comparison of Schemas for Dublin Core-based Video Metadata Representation" [SEARCHABLE] for discussion specifically addressing timed multimedia presentations.

4 Terms and Definitions

User Configurable Schedule

A user configurable schedule allows the user to determine the type of prompts and alerts that are used, including when they are presented. For example, a user may wish to include multiple images without being prompted for alternative information, and then provide the alternative information in a batch process, or may wish to be reminded each time they add an image. If the prompting is done on a user configurable schedule they will be able to make that decision themselves. This technique allows a tool to suit the needs a wide range of authors.

Interruptive Alerts

Interruptive alerts are informative messages that interrupt the edit process for the user. For example, interruptive alerts are often presented when a user's action could cause a loss of data. Interruptive alerts allow problems to be brought to the user's attention immediately. However, users may resent the constant delays and forced actions. Many people prefer to finish expressing an idea before returning to edit its format.

Unintrusive Alerts

Unintrusive alerts are alerts such as icons, underlines, and gentle sounds that can be presented to the user without necessitating immediate action. for example, in some word processors misspelled text is highlighted without forcing the user to make immediate corrections. These alerts allow users to continue editing with the knowledge that problems will be easy to identify at a later time. However, users may become annoyed at the extra formatting or may choose to ignore the alerts altogether.

Prompts

Prompts are requests for user input, either information or a decision. Prompts require author response.

Alerts

Alerts notify the author of something, or mark something for the author's attention. They may or may not require author response.

Authoring Tool

As used in this document, an Authoring Tool is any software that is used to generate content for publishing on the Web. See also section 1.3 Scope of the guidelines.

Conversion Tool

A Conversion Tool is any application or application feature that allows content in some other format (proprietary or not) to be converted automatically into a particular markup language. This includes software whose primary function is to convert documents to a particular markup language as well as "save as HTML" (or other markup language) features in non-markup applications.

Generation Tool

A Generation Tool is a program or script that produces automatic markup "on the fly" by following a template or set of rules. The generation may be performed on either the server or client side.

Site Management Tool

A tool that provides an overview of an entire Web site indicating hierarchical structure. It will facilitate management through functions that may include automatic index creation, automatic link updating, and broken link checking.

Publishing Tool

A tool that allows content to be uploaded in an integrated fashion. Sometimes these tools makes changes such as local hyper-reference modifications. Although these tools sometimes stand alone, they may also be integrated into site management tools.

Image Editor

A graphics program that provides a variety of options for altering images of different formats.

Video Editor

A tool that facilitates the process of manipulating video images. Video editing includes cutting segments (trimming), re-sequencing clips, and adding transitions and other special effects.

Multi-media Authoring Tool

Software that facilitates integration of diverse media elements into an comprehensive presentation format. May incorporate video, audio, images, animations, simulations, and other interactive components.

Automated Markup Insertion Function

Automated markup insertion functions are the features of an authoring tool that allow the user to produce markup without directly typing it. This includes a wide range of tools from simple markup insertion aids (such as a bold button on a toolbar) to markup managers (such as table makers that include powerful tools such as "split cells" that can make multiple changes) to high level site building wizards that produce almost complete documents on the basis of a series of user preferences.

Transformation

A process whereby one object is changed, according to a discrete set of rules, into another, equivalent, object. This includes any application or application feature that allows content that is marked up in a particular markup language to be transformed into another markup language, such as software that allows the author to change the DTD defined for the original document to another DTD. It also describes the substitution of textual equivalents for graphical or visually defined elements and objects, and the conversion from one element type to another within a document.

Document

A document is a series of elements that are defined by a language (e.g., HTML 4.0 or an XML application).

Element

An element is any identifiable object within a document, for example a character, word, image, paragraph or spreadsheet cell. In HTML and XML an element refers to a pair of tags and their content, or an "empty" tag - one that has no closing tag or content.

Property

A property is a piece of information about an element, for example structural information (e.g., it is item number 7 in a list, or plain text) or presentation information (e.g., that it is marked as bold, its font size is 14). In XML and HTML properties of an element include the name of the element (e.g., IMG or DL), the values of its attributes, and information associated by means of a style sheet. In a database, properties of a particular element may include values of the entry, and acceptable data types for that element.

Attributes

in XML and HTML, an element may have any number of attributes. In the following example, the attributes of the beverage element are flavor, which has the value "lots", and colour, which has the value "red": <beverage flavor="lots" colour="red">my favorite</beverage> Some attributes are integral to document accessibility (e.g., the "alt", "title", and "longdesc" attributes in HTML

Rendered Content

The rendered content is that which an element actually causes to be rendered by the user agent. This may differ from the element's structural content. For example, some elements cause external data to be rendered (e.g., the IMG element in HTML), and in some cases, browsers may render the value of an attribute (e.g., "alt", "title") in place of the element's content.

Accessibility Awareness

The term accessibility awareness is used to describe an application that has been designed to maximize the ease of use of the interface and its products for people with differing needs, abilities and technologies. In the case of authoring tools, this means that (1) care has been taken to ensure that the content produced by user-authors is accessible and (2) that the user interface has been designed to be usable with a variety of display and control technologies.

Accessible, Accessibility

Within these guidelines, Accessible and Accessibility are used in the sense of being accessible to people regardless of disability.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility information is content, including information and markup, which is used to improve the accessibility of a document.

Inaccessible Markup, Inaccessible Element, Inaccessible Attribute, Inaccessible Authoring Practice and Access Barrier

All these terms are used in the context of inaccessibility as defined by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT].

Accessibility Solution, Accessible Authoring Practice

These terms refer to Authoring practices that improve the accessibility of content generated by the tool.

Alternative Presentations and Alternative Information

Certain types of content may not be accessible to all users (e.g., images or audio presentations), so alternative representations are used, such as transcripts for audio, or short functionally equivalent text (e.g., "site map link") and/or descriptive text equivalents (e.g., "Graph 2.5 shows that the population has doubled approximately every ten years for the last fifty years, increasing from about 10 million to 330 million in that time"). An object may have several alternative representations, for example a video, captions of the audio, audio description of the video, a series of still images, and textual representations of each of these.

Description Link (D-link)

A description link, or D-Link, is an author-supplied link to additional information about a piece of content that might otherwise be difficult to access (image, applet, video, etc.).

Transcripts

A transcript is a line by line record of all dialog and action within a video or audio clip.

Video Captions

A video caption is a textual message that is stored in the text track of a video file. The video caption describes the action and dialog for the scene in which it is displayed.

Inserting an element

Inserting an element involves placing that element's markup within the markup of the file. This applies to all insertions, including, but not limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, choosing an automated insertion from a pull-down menu or tool bar button, "drag-and-drop" style insertions, or "paste" operations.

Editing an element

Editing an element involves making changes to one or more of an element's attributes or properties. This applies to all editing, including, but not limited to, direct coding in a text editing mode, making changes to a property dialog or direct User Interface manipulation.

Views

An authoring tool may offer several views of the same document. For instance, one view may show raw markup, a second may show a structured tree view, a third may show markup with rendered objects while a final view shows an example of how the document may appear if it were to be rendered by a particular browser.

Editing view

What is displayed by the authoring tool to the author during the editing process.

Rendered view

What is displayed by the authoring tool to the author as a means of simulating how a user of the document being edited will interact with the document currently being edited as a published document.

Selection

A selection is a set of elements identified for a particular operation. The user selection identifies a set of elements for certain types of user interaction (e.g., cut, copy, and paste operations). The user selection may be established by the user (e.g., by a pointing device or the keyboard) or via an accessibility Application Programmatic Interface (API). A view may have several selections, but only one user selection.

Current User Selection

When several views co-exist, each may have a user selection, but only one is active, called the current user selection. The selections may be rendered specially (e.g., visually highlighted).

Focus

The focus designates the active element (e.g., link, form control, element with associated scripts, etc.) in a view that will react when the user next interacts with the document.

Markup Language

The term markup language is used in this document to refer to the encoding language of a document, such as HTML, SVG, or MathML.

5 Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the following people who have contributed through review and comment: Jim Allan, Denis Anson, Kynn Bartlett, Harvey Bingham, Judy Brewer, Carl Brown, Dick Brown, Kelly Ford, Wendy Chisholm, Rob Cumming, Daniel Dardailler, Mark Day, BK Delong, Jamie Fox, Sylvain Galineau, Al Gilman, Eric Hansen, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Brian Kelly, Marja-Riitta Koivunen, Jaap van Lelieveld, William Loughborough, Karen McCall, Charles Oppermann, Dave Pawson, Dave Poehlman, Bruce Roberts, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Jim Thatcher, Irène Vatton, Gregg Vanderheiden, Pawan Vora, Jason White, and Lauren Wood.

If you have contributed to the AU guidelines and your name does not appear please contact the editors to add your name to the list.

6 References

For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports.

[ACCESS-AWARE]

"The Three-tions of Accessibility-Aware HTML Authoring Tools", J. Richards.

[AMAYA]

Amaya W3C's own browser/authoring tool, used to demonstrate and test many of the new developments in Web protocols and data formats. Amaya has a WYSIWYG style of interface. Source code, binaries, and further information are all available at http://www.w3.org/Amaya/.

[APPLE-HI]

"Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines", Apple Computer Inc.

[APROMPT]

A-prompt tool is a freely available example tool developed by the Adaptive Technology Resource Center at the University of Toronto, and the TRACE center at the University of Wisconsin. The source code for the tool is also available at http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca

[Auto-tools]

"Techniques For Evaluation And Implementation Of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines", C. Ridpath.

[CSS1]

"CSS, level 1 Recommendation", B. Bos, H. Wium Lie, eds., 17 December 1996, revised 11 January 1999. This CSS1 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111. The latest version of CSS1 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1.

[CSS2]

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

[CSS2-ACCESS]

"Accessibility Features of CSS", I. Jacobs and J. Brewer, eds., 4 August 1999. This version is http://www.w3.org/1999/08/NOTE-CSS-access-19990804. The latest version of Accessibility Features of CSS is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access.

[ED-DEPT]

"Requirements for Accessible Software Design", US Department of Education, version 1.1 March 6, 1997.

[EITAAC]

"EITACC Desktop Software standards", Electronic Information Technology Access Advisory (EITACC) Committee.

[HTML40]

"HTML 4.0 Recommendation", D. Raggett, A. Le Hors, and I. Jacobs, eds., 17 December 1997, revised 24 April 1998. This HTML 4.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424. The latest version of HTML 4.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40.

[HTML4-ACCESS]

"WAI Resources: HTML 4.0 Accessibility Improvements", I. Jacobs, J. Brewer, and D. Dardailler, eds. This document describes accessibility features in HTML 4.0.

[IBM-ACCESS]

"Software Accessibility", IBM Special Needs Systems.

[ICCCM]

"The Inter-Client communication conventions manual". A protocol for communication between clients in the X Window system.

[ICE-RAP]

"An ICE Rendezvous Mechanism for X Window System Clients", W. Walker. A description of how to use the ICE and RAP protocols for X Window clients.

[JAVA-ACCESS]

"IBM Guidelines for Writing Accessible Applications Using 100% Pure Java", R. Schwerdtfeger, IBM Special Needs Systems.

[JAVA-CHECKLIST]

"Java Accessibility Guidelines and Checklist", IBM Special Needs Systems.

[JAVA-TUT]

"The Java Tutorial. Trail: Creating a GUI with JFC/Swing". An online tutorial that describes how to use the Swing Java Foundation Class to build an accessible User Interface.

[MATHML]

"Mathematical Markup Language", P. Ion and R. Miner, eds., 7 April 1998, revised 7 July 1999. This MathML 1.0 Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-MathML-19990707. The latest version of MathML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML.

[MS-ACCESS]

"Information for Developers About Microsoft Active Accessibility", Microsoft Corporation.

[MS-ENABLE]

"Accessibility for Applications Designers", Microsoft Corporation.

[MS-SOFTWARE]

"The Microsoft Windows Guidelines for Accessible Software Design". Warning! This is a "self-extracting archive", an application that will probably only run on MS-Windows systems.

[NOTES-ACCESS]

"Lotus Notes Accessibility Guidelines", IBM Special Needs Systems.

[RDF-SYNTAX]

"Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification", O. Lassila, R. Swick, eds., 22 February 1999. This RDF Recommendation is http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222. The latest version of RDF 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax.

[SEARCHABLE]

"A Comparison of Schemas for Dublin Core-based Video Metadata Representation", J Hunter.

[SUN-DESIGN]

"Designing for Accessibility", Eric Bergman and Earl Johnson. This paper discusses specific disabilities including those related to hearing, vision, and cognitive function.

[SUN-HCI]

"Towards Accessible Human-Computer Interaction", Eric Bergman, Earl Johnson, Sun Microsytems 1995. A substantial paper, with a valuable print bibliography.

[SVG]

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

[TRACE-REF]

"Application Software Design Guidelines", compiled by G. Vanderheiden. A thorough reference work.

[WAI-AUTOOLS]

"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (Working Draft)", J. Treviranus, J. Richards, I. Jacobs, and C. McCathieNevile eds. The latest draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS.

[WAI-ER]

The Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group tracks and develops tools that can help repair accessibility errors.

[WAI-USERAGENT]

"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines", J. Gunderson and I. Jacobs, eds. The latest version of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WAI-USERAGENT.

[WAI-WEBCONTENT]

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

[WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS]

"Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", W. Chisholm, G. Vanderheiden, and I. Jacobs, eds. The latest version of Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/.

[Web-Content-Priority]

Priorities defined by [WAI-WEBCONTENT].

[WHAT-IS]

"What is Accessible Software", James W. Thatcher, Ph.D., IBM, 1997. This paper gives a short example-based introduction to the difference between software that is accessible, and software that can be used by some assistive technologies.

[XHTML10]

XHTML^(TM) 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language" (Working Draft), S. Pemberton et al. The latest version of XHTML 1.0 is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1

[XMLGL]

"XML Accessibility Guidelines" (Draft Note), D. Dardailler ed. Draft notes for producing accessible XML document types. The latest version of the XML Accessibility Guidelines is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/xmlgl.