You are on page 1of 113

Essential Components of Web Accessibility Introduction How the Components Relate Interdependencies Between Components Guidelines for Different

Components This document shows how Web accessibility depends on several components working together and how improvements in specific components could substantially improve Web accessibility. It also shows how the WAI guidelines address these components. Introduction It is essential that several different components of Web development and interaction work together in order for the Web to be accessible to people with disabilities. These components include: content - the information in a Web page or Web application, including: natural information such as text, images, and sounds code or markup that defines structure, presentation, etc. Web browsers, media players, and other "user agents" assistive technology, in some cases - screen readers, alternative keyboards, switches, scanning software, etc. users' knowledge, experiences, and in some cases, adaptive strategies using the Web developers - designers, coders, authors, etc., including developers with disabilities and users who contribute content authoring tools - software that creates Web sites evaluation tools - Web accessibility evaluation tools, HTML validators, CSS validators, etc. How the Components Relate

Web developers usually use authoring tools and evaluation tools to create Web content. People ("users") use Web browsers, media players, assistive technologies, or other "user agents" to get and interact with the content. Interdependencies Between Components There are significant interdependencies between the components; that is, the components must work together in order for the Web to be accessible. For example, for alternative text on images: Technical specifications address alternative text (for example, HTML defines the alternative text attribute (alt) of the image element (img)) WAI guidelines - WCAG, ATAG, and UAAG, described below - define how to implement alternative text for accessibility in the different components Developers provide the appropriate alternative text wording Authoring tools enable, facilitate, and promote providing alternative text in a Web page Evaluation tools are used to help check that alternative text exists User agents provide human and machine interface to the alternative text Assistive technologies provide human interface to the alternative text in various modalities

Users know how to get the alternative text from their user agent and/or assistive technology as needed The Implementation Cycle When accessibility features are effectively implemented in one component, the other components are more likely to implement them.

When Web browsers, media players, assistive technologies, and other user agents support an accessibility feature, users are more likely to demand it and developers are more likely to implement it in their content. When developers want to implement an accessibility feature in their content, they are more likely to demand that their authoring tool make it easy to implement. When authoring tools make a feature easy to implement, developers are more likely to implement it in their content. When an accessibility feature is implemented in most content, developers and users are more likely to demand that user agents support it. When One Component is Weak If an accessibility feature is not implemented in one component, there is little motivation for the other components to implement it when it does not result in an accessible user experience. For example, developers are unlikely to implement an accessibility feature that authoring tools do not support and that most browsers or assistive technologies do not implement consistently.

If one component has poor accessibility support. sometimes other components can compensate through "work-arounds" that require much more effort and are not good for accessibility overall. and assistive technology and lack of accessibility of content. coding markup directly instead of through a tool users can do more work to compensate for some lack of accessibility support in browsers. making it impossible for some people with disabilities to use a particular Web site. Additionally. for example. Guidelines for Different Components The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops Web accessibility guidelines for the different components: Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) addresses authoring tools Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) addresses Web content. For example. and is used by developers. for example. authoring tools. developers can do more work to compensate for some lack of accessibility support in authoring tools. media players. or feature. sometimes poor accessibility support in one component cannot be reasonably overcome by other components and the result is inaccessibility. and accessibility evaluation tools . using different browsers or assistive technologies to overcome different accessibility issues However. in most cases the works-arounds are not implemented and the result is still poor accessibility. page.

[Contacting WAI] Feedback welcome to wai-eo-editors@w3. W3C liability. Keio). SVG. and are developed in coordination with: W3C technical specifications (HTML.0 W3C Working Draft 08 July 2010 . etc.User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) addresses Web browsers and media players. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements. ERCIM.) Document Information Version: 1. document use and software licensing rules apply. This information is under development with the Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG). SMIL. All Rights Reserved.3 August 2005 Editor: Shawn Lawton Henry. CSS. including some aspects of assistive technologies WAI guidelines are based on the fundamental technical specifications of the Web. trademark. Graphic artist: Michael Duffy. Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.org Copyright © 1994-2010 W3C® (MIT. XML.

Since then. support. Adaptive Technology Resource Centre.0 This is the W3C Last Call Working Draft of 8 July 2010. Adaptive Technology Resource Centre.w3.w3. All Rights Reserved. University of Toronto Jeanne Spellman. and promote the production of accessible web content by all authors. The "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2. Status of This Document W3C Public Working Draft of ATAG 2. W3C liability.0 was published 14 March 2003. This draft integrates changes made as a result of comments received on the 29 October 2009 Public Working Draft. Publication as a Last Call Working Draft indicates that the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) believes it has addressed all substantive issues and that the document is stable. Abstract This specification provides guidelines for designing web content authoring tools that are both (1) more accessible to authors with disabilities and (2) designed to enable. W3C Jutta Treviranus.This version: http://www. ERCIM. The first public Working Draft of ATAG 2.0) is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). the AUWG has published nine .0" (ATAG 2.org/TR/ATAG20/ Previous version: http://www.w3. trademark and document use rules apply. University of Toronto Previous Editors: Matt May (until June 2005 while at W3C) Copyright © 2010 W3C® (MIT. Keio).org/TR/2009/WD-ATAG20-20091029/ Editors: Jan Richards.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/ Latest version: http://www.

0.Working Drafts and one previous Last Call Working Draft.0 as a W3C Recommendation. The success criteria "B. Comments on the draft should be sent to public-atag2-comments@w3.0 accessibility support is typically not evaluated until the content is created.2. The success criteria "B. .1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A)" has been changed to make it more flexible. The conformance section now specifically waives "accessibility-supported ways of using technologies" from WCAG 2.0 [ATAG10] is the stable. The Working Group seeks feedback on the following points for this draft: Does ATAG 2.2.0 for evaluating ATAG 2. and to link to the conformance claim for more information. are the documents sufficiently similar in style and approach to be effective? Do users with disabilities think that their needs have been addressed with regard to Section A? Is the conformance claim process usable by developers of authoring tool software? Comments on this working draft are due on or before 2 September 2010. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) intends to publish ATAG 2. addressed hundreds of issues and developed implementation support information for the guidelines.0 conformance. See How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process for more background on document maturity levels. instead of being required to test every success criteria.0.1 Decision Support" has been changed to clarify the responsibilities of the developer of the authoring tool as to which technologies require warnings. because WCAG 2.1.0 in conjunction with WCAG 2.0? Since authoring tool developers will need to use ATAG 2.0 address the shortcomings of ATAG 1.org (Public Archive). The authoring tool will now require a check for success criteria that the author has the ability to violate. referenceable version. This Working Draft does not supersede ATAG 1. Until that time Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1.2. Substantial changes from the 29 October 2009 draft include: The ATAG Working Group (AUWG) has approved a number of requests for changes to improve the clarity of the document.

An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy. replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. Table of Contents Abstract Status of This Document Introduction ATAG 2.0 Guidelines PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible . Web Accessibility Initiative This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).w3. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group. Patents This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. The AUWG is part of the WAI Technical Activity. This is a draft document and may be updated. Other documents may supersede this document.org/TR/.May be Superseded This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. No Endorsement Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. The goals of the AUWG are discussed in the Working Group charter. 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. that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent.0 Layers of Guidance Understanding Levels of Conformance Integration of Accessibility Features ATAG 2.

0.0 Levels of Conformance Conformance Claims "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement Disclaimer Appendix A: Glossary Appendix B: How to refer to ATAG 2.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled Principle B. This document includes recommendations for assisting authoring tool developers to make the authoring tools that they develop more accessible to people with disabilities. .0 guidelines to ATAG 2.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated Conformance Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines Principle A.2: Editing views must be perceivable Principle A.4: Editing views must be understandable PART B: Support the production of accessible content Principle B.0 from other documents Appendix C: References Appendix D: Acknowledgments Appendix E: Checklist Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content Principle B. including blindness and low vision.Principle A.3: Editing views must be operable Principle A. deafness and hearing loss.0 Introduction This section is informative. This is a Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version 2.

0 (i.0.0 notes that even content that conforms to the highest level of WCAG 2. speech difficulties. Notes: The term "authoring tools" has a specific definition in ATAG 2. whose needs are met by ensuring that the authoring tool user interface itself is accessible (addressed by Part A of the guidelines). appears in the Glossary. and guided towards producing accessible web content (addressed by Part B of the guidelines). and others. supported. includes addressing the needs of two (potentially overlapping) user groups with disabilities: authors of web content. degrees.0 vary widely and include authoring tool developers. cognitive limitations. testable success criteria and an Implementing ATAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance The individuals and organizations that may use ATAG 2.learning disabilities.e.0. Accessibility. authoring tool purchasers. Authoring tools are just one aspect of web accessibility. general guidelines. overall principles. which includes several normative notes. Development of authoring tools that address more specialized needs is encouraged. whose needs are met by ensuring that all authors are enabled.0 recommends that authoring tools be capable of producing web content that conforms with WCAG 2. motor difficulties. but is beyond the scope of this document. WCAG 2. particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas". and end users of web content. ATAG 2.. Level AAA) may not be "accessible to individuals with all types. several layers of guidance are provided including two parts. or combinations of disability. from an authoring tool perspective.0 document. ATAG 2. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience. For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see: Essential Components of Web Accessibility Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) Overview ATAG 2. The definition. authoring tool users (authors).0 does not include standard usability recommendations. However. . except where they have a significantly greater impact on people with disabilities than on other people. and policy makers.

In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations. examples and links to related resources.0 is divided into two parts. the user interface issue must cause a . ATAG 2. regulation. purchasing. Understanding Levels of Conformance In order to ensure that the process of using ATAG 2. Guidelines: Under the principles are guidelines. but provide the framework and overall objectives to help authoring tool developers understand the success criteria. All of these layers of guidance (parts. principles. AA (middle). The guidelines provide the basic goals that authoring tool developers should work toward in order to make authoring tools more accessible to both authors and end users of web content with different disabilities. Success Criteria: For each guideline. including a description of the intent of the success criterion. all success criteria must present authoring tool user interface-related accessibility issues. guidelines.0 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification.Parts: ATAG 2.0 document) work together to provide guidance on how to make authoring tools more accessible. Implementing ATAG 2. These include: For Part A.0. In other words. testable success criteria are provided to allow ATAG 2.0 document: The Implementing ATAG 2. Principles: Each of the two parts includes several high-level principles that organize the guidelines.0. The guidelines are not testable. Each guideline includes a brief rationale for why the guideline was included. As with WCAG 2. Part A relates to ensuring the accessibility of authoring tool user interfaces to authors with disabilities. there are a number of conditions that must be met for a success criterion to be included in ATAG 2.0 document provides additional non-normative information for each success criterion. and contractual agreements.0's three level conformance model: Level A (lowest).0 shares WCAG 2. Part B Applicability Notes).0 together in the development of authoring tools is as simple as possible. by any author (not just those with disabilities). multiple levels of full and partial conformance are defined (see Levels of Conformance).0 and WCAG 2. of web content that is accessible to end users with disabilities. success criteria. Part B relates to ensuring support by authoring tools for the creation. and the Implementing ATAG 2. each reflecting a key aspect of accessible authoring tools. AAA (highest). Authoring tool developers are encouraged to review all of the layers. Each part includes normative applicability notes that apply to all of the success criteria within that part (see Part A Applicability Notes.

g. then even assistive technology cannot make the authoring tool user interface accessible) whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for all types of authoring tools that the success criteria would apply to (e. . All success criteria must also be testable.proportionately greater problem for authors with disabilities than it causes authors without disabilities and must be specific to authoring tool software. as opposed to software in general. limits on the function.. For Part B. if the success criterion is not met.g. then even authors with a high degree of accessibility expertise would be unlikely to produce accessible web content using an authoring tool) whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for the production of all web content technologies that the success criteria would apply to.. Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part A included: whether the success criterion is essential (in other words. all success criteria must present accessible web content production issues. etc. text editors. the issue must be specific to the production of accessible web content by authoring tools. aesthetic or freedom of expression of authoring tool developers) whether there are workarounds for authors with disabilities if the success criterion is not met Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part B included: whether the success criterion is essential (in other words. as opposed to the production of web content in general. WYSIWYG editors. The success criteria can be tested by a combination of machine and human evaluation as long as it is possible to determine whether a success criterion has been satisfied with a high level of confidence. design.) whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools (e. content management systems. In other words. The success criteria were assigned to one of the three levels of conformance by the Working Group after taking into consideration a wide range of interacting issues. whether the success criterion requires features that would reasonably be used by authors. This is important since otherwise it would not be possible to determine whether an authoring tool met or failed to meet the success criteria. if the success criterion is not met.

aesthetic or freedom of expression of authoring tool developers) Integration of Accessibility Features When implementing ATAG 2. This includes views of the web content being edited and features that are independent of the content being edited. make authors more receptive to new accessibility-related authoring requirements. However. limits on the function. and reduce the likelihood of author confusion. User agent features: Web-based authoring tools may rely on user agent features (e.. undo features.. it is recommended that authoring tool developers closely integrate features that support accessible authoring with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. ensuring that a text alternative in the content can be programmatically determined).. where an authoring tool user interface accessibility problem is caused directly by a web content accessibility problem in the content being edited (e. user preferences. display preferences. the claim cites the user agent. if an image in the content lacks a label). etc. Guidelines The success criteria and applicability notes in this section are normative.whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools (e.0. documentation.g. find functions.g. Reflected web content accessibility problems: The authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that editing views display the web content being edited in a way that is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.. etc. status bars. PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible Applicability Notes: Scope of authoring tool user interface: The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the authoring tool developer. . keyboard navigation. If a conformance claim is made.) to satisfy success criteria. leverage the existing knowledge and skills of authors. then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface. design.g. such as menus. button bars.g. Close integration has the potential to: produce a more seamless product.

2.1] Note: If a conformance claim is made.1.1.1.). the claim cites the accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that were followed. The only exemption is for preview features.2] Rationale: When authoring tools or parts of authoring tools are non-web-based (e. including those with disabilities. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible: Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that support accessibility.g.3 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2.7.3] Guideline A. A. (Level AA) [Implementing A..1.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level A): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2. including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.2. following existing accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that support accessibility will facilitate access by all authors. PRINCIPLE A.1] A.2 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level AA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2. [Implementing A.1. A.1. [Implementing A.Features for meeting Part A must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface. (Level A) [Implementing A.1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible. search functions.0 Level AA.1. Previews are treated differently than editing views because all authors. (Level A) [Implementing A.g.1.2] A. including those using assistive technologies.0 Level A. conforming to WCAG 2.1.1. a client-side file uploader for a web-based content management system).g.3. as long as they meet Guideline A.0 will facilitate access by all authors.1.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that non-web-based functionality is accessible.1..1.1. etc.1] Rationale: When authoring tools or parts of authoring tools (e.2: Editing views must be perceivable . benefit when preview features accurately reflect the actual functionality of user agents. including those using assistive technologies.1. an online help system) are web-based. documentation.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines Guideline A..0 Level AAA.1. PRINCIPLE A.1.1.

3] Rationale: Some authors need to set their own display settings in a way that differs from the presentation that they want to define for the published web content.2.3.2.2. within content renderings.2.2.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Editing view presentation can be programmatically determined.2. [Implementing A.2] Rationale: Some authors need access to the editing view presentation because this may be used to convey both status information added by the authoring tool (e. [Implementing A.1 Recognized Alternative Content: If recognized alternative content is available for editing view content renderings.3] Guideline A.2. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.g.2.2.1 Independence of Display: Authors can set their own display settings for editing views (including WYSIWYG views) without affecting the web content to be published..2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an editing view (e. then that additional information can be programmatically determined. then those properties can be programmatically determined: (Level A) [Implementing A.2. italic. and (c) Text Color.2.2.g.g. [Implementing A.2.1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Make alternative content available to authors.1. A. A.1 Purpose of Added Presentation: If an editing view modifies the presentation of web content to provide additional information to authors.1] . and (d) Text Size. WYSIWYG view) renders any presentation properties for text. (Level A) [Implementing A.1] Guideline A.3: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure the independence of authors' display preferences.2. information about the end user experience of the web content being edited.2. WYSIWYG view) renders any of the following presentation properties for text.1] Rationale: Some authors require access to alternative content in order to interact with the web content that they are editing.2.g.3 Access to Text Presentation (Enhanced): If an editing view (e. and (b) Text Style (e...2. A.Guideline A. then those properties can be programmatically determined. bold).2.2.1] A.3. (Level A) [Implementing A. (Level A) [Implementing A.2] (a) Text Font.2. then the alternative content is provided to authors..2. A.1. underlining misspelled words) and.2.

1] Note 1: This exception relates to the nature of web content. A. [Implementing A. setting the path of a freehand curve is exempt.1.PRINCIPLE A. then a documented keyboard command is provided that will always restore keyboard focus to a known location (e.3.g.4 Keyboard Access (Enhanced): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface. not the usual input technique..1.1.1. (Level A) [Implementing A. (Level AA) [Implementing A. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.6] Guideline A.g.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3: Editing views must be operable Guideline A.2] .1. and (b) In Editing Views that Render Web Content: If an editing view renders web content (e.3. and instead require full keyboard access. [Implementing A.3. while setting the endpoints of a straight line is not.3.3.1. WYSIWYG view).6 Present Keyboard Commands: Authoring tool user interface controls can be presented with any associated keyboard commands.3. then focus can be moved away from that component using standard keyboard navigation commands (e.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide authors with enough time. For example.3] A.3.1. A.3.3. A.g.1.1.3. Note 2: This should not be interpreted as discouraging mouse input or other input methods in addition to the keyboard interface. TAB key).1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features.1] Rationale: Some authors with limited mobility or visual disabilities are not able to use a mouse.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface.1.1.. except where editing web content properties that encode continuous input.1.2 No Content Keyboard Traps: Keyboard traps are prevented as follows: (Level A) [Implementing A.2] (a) In the Authoring Tool User Interface: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using the keyboard..3.3. the menus).5 Customize Keyboard Access: Keyboard access to the authoring tool can be customized.5] A. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.4] A.3.3.3.3.

g.3.3. A.1] .. such as clicking on a moving target.1 Static View Option: Rendering of time-based content (e.2] (a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): The authoring tool can be set to save all content edits made by authors. A. (Level A) [Implementing A. A.3 Static Pointer Targets: User interface components that accept pointer input are either stationary or authors can pause the movement.3] A. then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.2.Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing.3] Rationale: Flashing can cause seizures in authors with photosensitive seizure disorder.3.2.1 Data Saved (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits. or (e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity. (Level A) [Implementing A. operating the mouse.3. [Implementing A. and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times. "press the space bar").2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool.3.2.3: [For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures. then the authoring tool saves all submitted content edits made by authors.3. (Level A) [Implementing A.2.4] Guideline A. or (d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e. animations) in editing views can be turned off.3.3. or (f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.2.3.3.g.2.2..2.3.3. or (c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e. or (b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting. a collaborative authoring system).3.g. and no alternative to the time limit is possible.1] A.. or processing information can be prevented from using systems with short time limits or requiring a fast reaction speed.

Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search.3. A. [Implementing A.4: [For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance navigation and editing via content structure. including: text content.4.5: [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content.3. (Level A) [Implementing A. and (c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.1] (a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable. then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.4.2] Guideline A.3.5] Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to use text search to navigate to arbitrary points within the web content being authored. [Implementing A. text alternatives for non-text content.4.3. markup elements and attributes.3.3.4] Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools make use of the structure present in web content to simplify the tasks of navigation and editing the content.3. (Level A) [Implementing A.2 Navigate By Structure: Editing views for structured web content include navigation mechanism(s) that can make use of the structure.1 Edit By Structure: Editing views for structured web content include editing mechanism(s) that can make use of the structure. and (b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards.3.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows: (Level AA) [Implementing A.4.1] A.3.5.3. metadata.3.6] . A.3. [Implementing A.6: [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings. Guideline A.Guideline A.5.

g.3.6.2] Note: As per Success Criterion A.3. [Implementing A. (Level AA) [Implementing A.4.3.2 Preview: If a preview is provided. (Level AA) [Implementing A. A.1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid and correct mistakes.1 Return Mechanism: If a preview is provided. then authors can return from the preview using only keyboard commands.3.4.3.3.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings.6.3.3.1.1] A.6.7] Rationale: Preview features are provided in many authoring tools because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how user agents will display the web content to end users.3.6. [Implementing A. (Level AAA) [Implementing A. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.4 Preferences Assistance: The authoring tool includes a mechanism to help authors configure any preference settings related to Part A of this document.4] Guideline A.2] (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent.3.6. Authors with disabilities need to be able to follow the same workflow.4: Editing views must be understandable Guideline A. then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A. due to fatigue). (Level A) [Implementing A.3 Multiple Sets: Authors can save and reload multiple sets of any authoring tool display settings and control settings.Rationale: Providing the ability to save and reload sets of keyboard and display preference settings benefits authors who have needs that differ over time (e.7.2.3.7.3.3] A..3. authors' display settings must still be independent of the web content being edited. or (b) UAAG (Level A): The preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A [UAAG].7. A.6.6.7. A.1] A.1] .3.3.6.7: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that previews are as accessible as existing user agents. PRINCIPLE A.1 Save Settings: Any authoring tool display settings and control settings are saved between authoring sessions.

2 Document All Features: All features of the authoring tool are documented.4.1.2 Undo Setting Changes: Actions that modify authoring tool settings are either reversible or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible. For example. keyboard shortcuts.1. Note 2: It is acceptable for certain committing actions (e.3] Guideline A.2.1. (Level AA) [Implementing A.g.4.4.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface including all accessibility features.Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty making fine movements may be prone to making unintended actions. A. [Implementing A.1. A.4. (Level AA) [Implementing A. for automatically-generated content.2.1 Undo Content Changes: Authoring actions are either reversible by an "undo" function or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible.1] A.4.1] Note 1: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions (e. "publish") to make all previous authoring actions irreversible.) are documented. the authoring tool is not required to provide checking for web content accessibility problems in that feed after the end of the authoring session. Applicability after the end of an authoring session: For author-generated content.1. if the author includes a third-party feed in their web content.4.4.2.4. Part B continues to apply after the end of the authoring session. a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.2] PART B: Support the production of accessible content Applicability Notes: Author availability: Any Part B success criteria that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions.4. "save".4.1 Document Accessibility Features: All features that are specifically required to meet Part A of this document (e.2] A.4. typed words. the requirements of Part B only apply during authoring sessions.4.3 Undo is Reversible: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent "undo" action(s). (Level A) [Implementing A. etc..1.2] Rationale: Some authors may not be able to understand or operate the authoring tool user interface without proper accessible documentation.2. text search.g. (Level A) [Implementing A.. (Level A) [Implementing A.g. For . A. In contrast.

).1] B. a content management system may separate the roles of designers. an authoring tool could make use of a thirdparty software accessibility checking and repair tool). including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.1. (Level AA) [Implementing B. (Level A) [Implementing B. documentation. [Implementing B.0 Level AA. Features for meeting Part B must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface. it must be possible to produce web content that conforms with WCAG 2.1.1] Rationale: For the purposes of this document.1. Multiple author roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles... the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled Guideline B. WCAG 2.3] Guideline B.2] .2: Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.example..0 definition of authoring tool. not to the view provided to any particular author role.1. To support accessible web content production. Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2. content authors.1 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level A): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2.1.1.1.1. at minimum. [Implementing B.2] B. B. etc.1. if the site-wide templates of a content management system are updated.1.0 using the authoring tool.g. these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automaticallygenerated content.1. In these cases.g. checking tools. several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.g.0 defines the accessible web content requirements.1: Support web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible.1.1.1.1. tutorials. PRINCIPLE B. and quality assurers).3 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level AAA): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2.1. repair tools.2 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level AA): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2. each with different views and content editing permissions (e.0 Level A.0 Level AAA. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.

.g.2.2.1.2.4] (a) Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information.2 End Product Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the web content technology of the output of a web content transformation cannot preserve recognized accessibility information (WCAG 2. or (b) Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion.1. B.g.1.2.2.0 Level AAA) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output. or (c) No Deletion Option: Authors have the option to prevent automatic deletion by the authoring tool.3 Preserve Accessibility Information (Enhanced): Any accessibility information (up to WCAG 2.0 Level A) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.1.3: Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible.Rationale: Accessibility information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility between the input and output of web content transformations.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (Minimum): Any accessibility information (WCAG 2.2] (a) Option to Save: authors have the option to save the accessibility information in another way (e.1. if allowed by the web content technology of the output. then at least one of the following is true: (Level AA) [Implementing B. as a backup copy of the input). as a "comment".2.1. or (b) Warning: authors are warned that this will result in web content accessibility problems in the output. .2.3] B.1.4 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason.1. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2. (Level A) [Implementing B. B. then at least one of the following are true: (Level A) [Implementing B. saving a structured graphic to a raster image format). [Implementing B.1.1] B.0 Level A) (e..1. Guideline B.3] Rationale: Authoring tools that automatically generate content that is not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.

1. then that web content conforms to WCAG 2. (Level A) [Implementing B. provide faulty accessibility information. etc.1. etc. B. authors might set less strict preferences. etc. see Guideline B. [Implementing B.2.1 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically generates content. authors might set less strict preferences.g. B.1.0 Level AAA prior to publishing.3.2.5.0 Level AA prior to publishing.2. It does not apply when actions of the authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.g. It does not apply when actions of the authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e..2. ignore prompts for accessibility information.g. (Level AA) [Implementing B.See Also: If accessibility information is required from authors during the automatic generation process. then that web content conforms to WCAG 2.1: Guide authors to create accessible content.3. B. If templates or other pre-authored content are involved.). It does not apply when actions of authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.).3 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.3..2] Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer. write their own automated scripts. then that web content conforms to WCAG 2. web content accessibility problems are mitigated and less repair effort is required. B.1] Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer.3.0 Level A prior to publishing.1. write their own automated scripts.3.1] Rationale: By guiding authors from the outset towards the creation and maintenance of accessible web content.1.1. ignore prompts for accessibility information. authors might set less strict preferences.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of producing a web content technology for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide . write their own automated scripts..3] Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer. provide faulty accessibility information.3.1. see Guideline B. ignore prompts for accessibility information.).1.2. provide faulty accessibility information.2 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content. PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content Guideline B.

0 .2: Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion.2. authors can access a list of technologies for which the authoring tool does provide support for the production of accessible content. so they can be immediately addressed. a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions).2 Set Accessible Properties: Mechanisms that set web content properties (e.2. then authors can associate accessibility information with that web content.2] B.2.2.3 Other Technologies: If the authoring tool can insert web content that it cannot subsequently edit.3] Guideline B.2. attribute values.g.2.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.3 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.e.2. B.2. B. etc.1.2. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems.2.2] B. (Level A) [Implementing B. For more information on checking. (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2.0 Level A Success Criterion can be violated. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided (e.2. instructions are . which authors must carry out by themselves. and (b) List: From the warning..2 Availability: Checking is available prior to publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool. see Implementing ATAG 2.support for the production of accessible content.1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2.1. manual checking and semi-automated checking).1] Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.1. [Implementing B.1. However.2. In manual checking.1. (Level A) [Implementing B.1] (a) Warning: Authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content for that technology. B. (Level A) [Implementing B.2] Rationale: Accessibility checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool helps make authors aware of web content accessibility problems during the authoring process.2.2.g.2. then both of the following are true: (Level A) [Implementing B...) also can be used to set the accessibility-related properties.

0 conformance level.) (Level A) [Implementing B.4] B.2..3] B.2.2. However.2. which authors must carry out by themselves. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems. etc. B. which authors must carry out by themselves.2. specific check results. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. etc..8] Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided. the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.8 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided.2. (Level AA) [Implementing B.5] Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. the relevant content is identified (e.0 Level AA Success Criterion can be violated.g.2.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata.2. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.2..0 . B. In manual checking.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks.0 Level AAA Success Criterion can be violated.2. . However.4 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.0 .7] Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e. summary conformance claims. In manual checking. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.) B.provided to help authors decide whether it is correctly identified. (Level A) [Implementing B.e. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems.2. manual checking and semi-automated checking).2.2.2. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion.6] Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. For example.2. see Implementing ATAG 2.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation. For more information on checking.2. highlighting the affected content. see Implementing ATAG 2. displaying line numbers. etc.g.2.2. For more information on checking.5 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2.

3.3. [Implementing B.8). see Implementing ATAG 2. In manual repair. However.Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation.5).3 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level AAA): For each WCAG 2. In manual repair. repair assistance is provided. B. (Level A) [Implementing B.0 Level AAA web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Success Criterion B. which authors must carry out by themselves.2.2 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level AA): For each WCAG 2.3] Rationale: Repair as an integral part of the authoring process greatly enhances the utility of checking and increases the likelihood that accessibility problems will be properly addressed.2.2] Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems.2. (Level AA) [Implementing B. However. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems.2. [Implementing B.3.2.2. which authors must carry out by themselves.3: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems.0 .2. B. repair assistance is provided. For more information on repair. B.3] Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. repair assistance is provided. which authors must carry out by themselves.1 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level A): For each WCAG 2. see Implementing ATAG 2.0 Level AA web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Success Criterion B. In manual repair. see Implementing ATAG 2.2. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion.2).2. However.2.3.Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation.4] .Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation.1] Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.2. Guideline B. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion.3.2.4: Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. For more information on repair.3.0 .0 Level A web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Guideline B. For more information on repair.2.Guideline B.0 .2.

reducing the effort required of authors.5.2. etc.4. modify.4.1] . and demonstrating the importance of accessible web content. see Guideline B. When non-text content is automatically added by the authoring tool.4] Guideline B.5: Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content. synchronized media.2.2.2] (a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept. B. See Also: This guideline applies when non-text content is specified by authors (e.g.4.g.2. short text labels.2. (Level A) [Implementing B.1] B. the authoring tool can automatically suggest alternative content for non-text content only under the following conditions: (Level A) [Implementing B.Rationale: Improperly generated alternative content can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.4.2.2.4.2. long descriptions) stored for future reuse. inserts an image). B.g.) can have several benefits.2. the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative content for non-text content using text value that is equally available to user agents (e. and (b) Relevant Sources: The suggested alternative content is only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e. then the selections conform to WCAG 2.4.1 Editable: Authors are able to modify alternative content for non-text content..3] B. including: immediately improving the accessibility of web content being edited. (Level A) [Implementing B.g. (Level AA) [Implementing B.5] Rationale: Providing accessible templates and other pre-authored content (e..1 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content.4.2. or reject the suggested alternative content prior to insertion.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.2.. B.. This includes types of alternative content that may not typically be displayed on screen by user agents. widgets. the filename is not used). clip art.2 Automated Suggestions: During the authoring session.4.3.0 Level A when used..g.2. suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).3 Let User Agents Repair: After the end of an authoring session.5.1. [Implementing B. (Level A) [Implementing B.

then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses. (Level AA) [Implementing B.5. .5.5.2.5. then the selections conform to WCAG 2.2. B.5.6] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the preauthored content (if known).3] Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates.5 New Templates: If authors can use the authoring tool to create new templates for use by a template selection mechanism.5] B.5. B.0 Level AA when used.2.5.g.6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.3 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content. then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.2.2.5. clip art gallery. B.. design themes).5.5.2.2.2. and (b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other preauthored content options.2] B.4] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known). The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly. and (b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.2. they have the option to record the accessibility status of the new templates. (Level A) [Implementing B. then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. (Level AA) [Implementing B. widget repository.

5.5.. styling text).1.8] B.3. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.g. they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they encounter that achieves their intended outcome.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly. (Level AA) [Implementing B.1.0 Level AA are at least as prominent as options that will not.2 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level AA): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.2.1: Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence..9 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content.2. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.1 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level A): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e. PRINCIPLE B. [Implementing B.2.B.9] Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2. then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status.3] .3. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2.1] Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring tool.g. Since they may be unaware of the issue of accessibility.3.0 Level A are at least as prominent as options that will not.3.3 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level AAA): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e. then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2] B.5. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2.2.0 Level AAA are at least as prominent as options that will not.7 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates.2.3.g.5. B.3.5. styling text). styling text).1.1..3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated Guideline B. it is preferable that accessible web content be an additional unintended outcome.0 Level AAA when used. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.1. rather than inaccessible content.1. (Level A) [Implementing B.1] B.5.3.7] B.3. then the selections conform to WCAG 2.

0 Level A accessible authoring practices. spelling and grammar errors).3.1] B.3.3. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2] Rationale: The accessible content support features will be more likely to be used if they are turned on and are afforded reasonable prominence within the authoring tool user interface.1 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level A): A range of examples in the documentation (e.2] Guideline B.3.Guideline B.1] .2. (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2: Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available. (Level A) [Implementing B.3.3. then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems.4] Rationale: Demonstrating accessible authoring as routine practice will encourage its acceptance by some authors.. some authors may not be able to use them.3. markup. [Implementing B.3..3.2 Accessible Authoring Tutorial: A tutorial on an accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided. B.4] Guideline B.g. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2 Reactivate Option: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature.2] B. (Level AA) [Implementing B.1 Instructions: Instructions for using the accessible content support features appear in the documentation. accessibility checking tools).4. [Implementing B.3.1 Active by Default: All accessible content support features are turned on by default.3.2.3.3..g.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e. (Level A) [Implementing B.3.3.3.2.g. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2.2. [Implementing B. prompts for text alternatives.3 Deactivation Warning: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature.4.2.1] B. B. (Level A) [Implementing B.3] Rationale: Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.3. invalid markup. then they can always turn the feature back on.3] B. syntax errors. B.3.2.3.2.3.3.3.3: Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented.3.3.4: Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible.

(Level AAA) [Implementing B. WCAG 2.3.0] success criteria. Note on "accessibility-supported ways of using technologies": Part of conformance to WCAG 2. This conformance section describes conformance and lists the conformance requirements.4..0 conformance.4.0 conformance in order to set requirements for (1) the accessibility of web-based authoring tool user interfaces (in Part A) and (2) how authors should be enabled. (Level AA) [Implementing B. . Therefore: For the purposes of ATAG 2. and guided towards producing accessible web content (in Part B).0 Because WCAG 2.4.. Conformance means that the authoring tool satisfies the success criteria defined in the guidelines section. etc.g.2 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level AA): A range of examples in the documentation (e.3.2] B. private intranets versus public websites.g.g. markup.3] Conformance This section is normative. markup. ATAG 2. This concept is not easily extended to authoring tools because many authoring tools can be installed and used in a variety of environments with differing availabilities for assistive technologies and user agents (e.4.0 is the requirement that "only accessibilitysupported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the [WCAG 2." In broad terms.3 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level AAA): A range of examples in the documentation (e. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported.0 Level AA accessible authoring practices.0 Level AAA accessible authoring practices.0 considers a web content technology to be accessibility supported when (1) the way that the web content technology is used is supported by users' assistive technology and (2) the web content technology has accessibilitysupported user agents that are available to end users..).3.3.0 frequently refers to WCAG 2. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2. the accessibility-supported requirement is waived. supported. monolingual sites versus multilingual sites. Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [WCAG20] is the most recent W3C Recommendation regarding web content accessibility.B. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2.

Conformance Requirements In order for an authoring tool to conform to ATAG 2.Once an authoring tool has been installed and put into use.0. "Partial" ATAG 2. However. Nothing is implied about Part B.0 Conformance at Level AA The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria. all of the following conformance requirements must be satisfied: Conformance Levels: Authoring tools may conform "fully" or "partially" to ATAG 2.0 conformance assessment would be completely independent of the authoring tool's conformance with ATAG 2.0. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Authoring Tool User Interface: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the authoring tool to authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible): Partial ATAG 2. "Full" ATAG 2. . it is possible to assess the WCAG 2. And the Part A Applicability Notes and Part B Applicability Notes have been applied. this WCAG 2.0 Conformance: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have considered the accessibility of the authoring tools from both the perspective of authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible) and the perspective of end users of web content produced by the authoring tools (Part B: Support the production of accessible content): Full ATAG 2. including whether the WCAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AAA The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria.0 Conformance at Level A The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria. In either case.0. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level A: Authoring Tool User Interface The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part A. the level of conformance depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied.0 accessibility-supported requirement is met.0 conformance of the web content that the authoring tool produces.

Partial ATAG 2. Partial ATAG 2. Nothing is implied about Part A.0. And the Part A Applicability Notes have been applied. Nothing is implied about Part A.0 Conformance Level A: Content Production The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part B.0 Conformance: Content Production: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the web content produced by the authoring tool to end users (Part B: Support the production of accessible content): Partial ATAG 2. Therefore. Nothing is implied about Part B. .. Web Content Technologies Produced: Authoring tools conform to ATAG 2. Note: The Working Group remains committed to the guiding principle that: "Everyone should have the ability to create and access web content".0 Conformance Level AAA: Authoring Tool User Interface The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part A. Full Level A conformance with respect to the production of XHTML 1.0 with respect to the production of specific web content technologies (e. it is recommended that "Partial" Conformance be claimed only as a step towards "Full" Conformance. Partial ATAG 2. And the Part B Applicability Notes have been applied. "Partial" ATAG 2. Partial Level AA Conformance: Content Production with respect to the production of SVG 1. Nothing is implied about Part B.1).0 Conformance Level AAA: Content Production The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part B.0 Conformance Level AA: Authoring Tool User Interface The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part A.0 Conformance Level AA: Content Production The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part B.g. Nothing is implied about Part A.Partial ATAG 2.

Conformance Claims (Optional) If a conformance claim is made.0. Required Components of an ATAG 2. other third parties).1. the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included.If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies.g. version and URI . When Success Criterion B. Claimants may be anyone (e. Date of the claim. product information web site). The subset may include "interim" formats that are not intended for publishing to end users. Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims (including claims that include products for which they are not responsible) and keeping claims up to date.g. Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.0 without making a claim): Conditions on Conformance Claims At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting Level A of WCAG 2. authoring tool developers. then the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information (authoring tools can conform to ATAG 2.1 refers to web content technologies for which the authoring tool provides support for the production of accessible content..0 Conformance Claim". but this is not required. Guidelines title. The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity. A suggested metadata description for this document is "ATAG 2. journalists. Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation.0 Conformance Claim Claimant name and affiliation.2. then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automaticallygenerated content or sets as the default for author-generated content.. it is referring to this subset.

Conformance level satisfied. or A declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not. As stated above. . the Claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim. not the developer of any of the software components. a markup editor.) and the name and version of the platform accessibility architecture(s) employed. an image editor. and a validation tool).g. human language of the user interface or documentation). For platforms that are not user agents (used to evaluate non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the platform(s) (e... although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole.0 Conformance Claim A description of the authoring tool that identifies the types of editing views that it includes. provide links to technology-specific techniques).g. A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is including in the conformance claim. operating system. version number (or version range). Declarations: For each success criterion: A declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied. etc. For each web content technology. provide information on how the web content technology might be used to create accessible web content (e.g. Authoring tool information: The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e. Web content technologies produced.g. Platform(s): The platform(s) upon which the authoring tool was evaluated: For user agent platform(s) (used to evaluate web-based authoring tool user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the user agent(s).0 success criteria were met where this may not be obvious. then information must be provided separately for each component. A description of how the ATAG 2. Optional Components of an ATAG 2.. required patches or updates. vendor name.. Note: If the authoring tool is a collection of software components (e. A list of any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is not including in the conformance claim.

WAI. text alternatives for images. Please consult http://www. Accessibility problem ATAG 2. WAI. web content accessibility problem: An aspect of web content that does not meet a WCAG 2.w3. The author of a "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy of their statement. This statement would be the same as a conformance claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2. accessibility information Any information that web content is required to contain in order to conform with a particular level of WCAG 2.0 conformance claim that has not been published under the authority of the W3C.0 success criterion. and report the progress on success criteria not yet met.e. nor AUWG take any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2. including terms used in the Conformance section. features added to meet any of the .0.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress towards conformance. Disclaimer Neither W3C. role and state information for widgets.0 refers to two types of accessibility problems: authoring tool user interface accessibility problem: An aspect of an authoring tool user interface that does not meet a success criterion in Part A of ATAG 2. Appendix A: Glossary This section is normative."Progress Towards Conformance" Statement Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular ATAG 2. or AUWG.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ for more information on the role of definitions in specification quality.0 conformance level that is being progressed towards.0 (e.g.. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement. accessible content support features Any features of an authoring tool that directly support authors in increasing the accessibility of the content being edited (i. This appendix contains definitions for all of the significant/important/unfamiliar terms used in the normative parts of this specification. rather than one already satisfied. captions for audio). relationships within complex tables..

success criteria in Principle B. speech recognition software. single switches. Alternative content Web content that is used in place of other content that a person may not be able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. which are used by people with visual. sip/puff and other special input devices). spacing. perceptual and physical print disabilities to change text font. Examples include text alternatives for non-text content. color. audio . text-to-speech software. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features. which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers. and learning disabilities to convert text into synthetic speech. separate from the authoring tool. Examples of assistive technologies include. which may be used by people who have some physical disabilities. synchronization with speech. in order improve the visual readability of rendered text and images. etc. that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. screen readers. alternative pointing devices. size. which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations. audio descriptions for video. which is used by some people with cognitive. which are used by people who are blind to read textual information through synthesized speech or Braille. the following: screen magnifiers. language. See WCAG 2.0 for more information. sign language for audio. ASCII art A picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content). but are not limited to. alternative keyboards. captions for audio. Assistive technology Software (or hardware). and other visual reading assistants. media alternatives for time-based media.

In other words. testers.g. authoring practice An approach that authors follow to achieve a given authoring outcome.0... deleting. Some accessible authoring practices require accessibility information. authoring outcome The content or content modifications that result from authoring actions. whether they qualify as an author of the content.g. etc. publishers. inserting an element. authoring practices may be chosen by the authors or by the authoring tool.The technology of sound reproduction. then made into a link. controlling presentation with style sheets). designers.. or both. then given a title). setting preferences. Authoring outcomes are cumulative (e. viewing documentation). (e. publishing) or by the authoring tool (e. This may include content authors.g. programmers.g.g. Depending on the design of an authoring tool. A person only qualifies as an author of some given content if (1) the authoring tool supports the relevant web content technology used to implement that content and (2) the person has author permission for that content. authors People who use an authoring tool to create or modify web content for use by other people.g. author permission Whether a person has a right to modify given web content. applying a template). The end of an authoring session may be determined by authors (e. authoring action Any action that authors can take using the authoring tool user interface that results in creating or editing web content (e.. recorded from real world sounds. typing text. authoring session A state of the authoring tool in which web content can be edited by an author. closing a document. The end of an authoring session is the point at which the author has no further opportunity to make changes without starting another session. An accessible authoring practice is one in which the authoring outcome conforms to WCAG 2. Some authoring tools are capable of managing authoring permissions in order to prevent unauthorized modifications. when the authoring tool transfers editing . Most authoring tool user interfaces also enable actions that do not edit content (e. then styled.. text is entered. working either alone or collaboratively (see also Part B Applicability Note 5).. Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis).

a non-webbased markup editor with a web-based help system.g. online forums) software for generating/managing entire web sites (e. For these authoring tools.0 may involve some . or collection of software components. commandline input or "wizard"-type processes software for rapidly updating portions of web pages (e. for web application development) software that generates web content on the basis of templates. but not limited to: web page authoring tools (e.g. scripts. WYSIWYG HTML editors) software for directly editing source code (see note below) software for converting to web content technologies (e. blogging.0 applies equally to authoring tools of web content that are web-based. content management systems. courseware tools. Automatic content generation may continue after the end of both the authoring session and initial publishing (e. non-web-based or a combination (e.g.g. "Save as HTML" features in office suites) integrated development environments (e. Real-time publishing: ATAG 2.0 applies to authoring tools with workflows that involve real-time publishing of web content (e. Examples of authoring tools: ATAG 2. including.. content management system updates).g. some collaborative tools). a web-based content management system with a non-web-based file uploader client). conformance to Part B of ATAG 2...permission to another author on a collaborative system).. Note that the end of the authoring session is distinct from publishing.g. that authors can use to create or modify web content for use by other people. wikis.. authoring tool Any software...g.g.. content aggregators) email clients that send messages in web content technologies multimedia authoring tools debugging tools for web content software for creating mobile web applications Web-based and non-web-based: ATAG 2.0 applies to a wide variety of web content generating applications.

0 is not intended to apply to simple text editors that can be used to edit source content.0 identifies three types of checking. such as Windows.g. with syntax checking. but where authors' input or judgment is still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the tests. An accessible authoring tool user interface is one that meets the success criteria of a level in Part A.Appendix E: Real-time content production. but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure. see the Implementing ATAG 2..).. authoring tool user interface (web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are implemented using web content technologies and are accessed by authors via a user agent. based on increasing levels of automation of the tests: manual checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. Java Virtual Machine. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool. the ability to add captions for audio that was initially published in real-time). etc. semi-automated checking: where the tests are partially carried out by the authoring tool. a non-web-based authoring tool might have web-based help pages): authoring tool user interface (non-web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are not implemented as web content and instead run directly on a platform that is not a user agent. Text Editors: ATAG 2.g. and automated checking: where the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors. .0 can apply to more sophisticated source content editors that support the production of specific web content technologies (e. Mac OS. markup prediction. etc. ATAG 2. In contrast. ATAG 2. For more information. authoring tool user interface The display and control mechanism that authors use to operate the authoring tool software.0 .combination of real-time accessibility supports and additional accessibility supports available after the real-time authoring session (e. checking (accessibility) The process by which web content is evaluated for web content accessibility problems. User interfaces may be non-web-based or web-based or a combination (e..g. but that include no support for the production of any particular web content technology.

An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types. collection of software components Any software programs that are used either together (e.g., base tool and plug-in) or separately (e.g., markup editor, image editor, and validation tool), regardless of whether there has been any formal collaboration between the developers of the software components. content (web content) Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the end user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions. In ATAG 2.0, the term is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool. Content produced by authoring tools may include web applications, including those that act as web-based authoring tools. Accessible web content is web content that conforms to a particular level of WCAG 2.0 (see Relationship to WCAG 2.0 section). Structured web content is content that includes machine-readable internal structure (e.g., markup elements), as opposed to unstructured content, such as raster image formats or plain human language text. content (web content)) properties The individual pieces of information that make up the web content (e.g., the attributes and contents of elements, stylesheet information, etc.). While many web content properties have discrete values (e.g., a single value for size, color, font, etc.), some types of web content (especially graphics) may include properties that can be said to encode continuous input because they incorporate frequent data samples (e.g., the location, speed, pressure, angle, etc. of a pointing device) . For example, a freehand line graphic object might have a "continuous" path property that encodes thousands of individual x-y location values, but "discrete" properties for setting the color and thickness of the line. A "watercolor stroke" graphic object might have multiple "continuous" properties (e.g., path, speed, pressure) in order to graphically mimic the diffusion effects that occur when a real paint brush is moved in a similar manner. content generation The act of specifying the web content to be rendered, played or executed by user agents. This may refer to information perceived by end users or to instructions for the user agents. Content may be author-generated when authors are fully responsible for the web content (e.g., typing markup into a source content editing view, writing captions for audio, etc.) or automatically-generated when programming by the authoring tool developer is responsible for the web content

(e.g., applying a template, automatically correcting markup errors, etc.). In some cases, responsibility for content generation is shared. For example, an author requests an interactive object be placed on their page (e.g., a photo album), the authoring tool applies a template, but the template requires input from the author to be complete. content rendering User interface functionality that authoring tools present if they render, play or execute the web content being edited. In ATAG 2.0 the term covers conventional renderings (e.g., WYSIWYG), unconventional renderings (e.g., rendering an audio file as a graphical wavefront) and partial renderings, in which some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or executed, but not others (e.g., a frame-by-frame video editor renders the graphical, but not the timing aspects, of a video). control settings Settings that relate to how authors control the authoring tool, for example using the keyboard or mouse developer Any entities or individuals responsible for programming the authoring tool. This includes the programmers of any additional software components included by the Claimant in the conformance claim. In some cases, development of the authoring tool is complete before authors can use it to publish web content. However, in other cases (e.g., some web-based authoring tools), the developer may continue to modify the authoring tool even after content has been published, such that the content experienced by the end user is modified. direct accessibility features Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet the requirements of authors with disabilities (e.g., keyboard navigation, zoom features, text-to-speech). Additional or specialized functionality may still be provided by external assistive technology. display settings Display settings include: display settings (audio): the characteristics of audio output of music, sounds and speech. Examples include volume, speech voices, voice speed, and voice emphasis. display settings (visual): the characteristics of the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. Examples include fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.

display settings (tactile): the characteristics of haptic output. Examples include the magnitude of the haptic forces and the types of vibration. documentation Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, sample work flows, tutorials, etc. document object The internal representation of data in the source content by a non-web based authoring tool or user agent. The document object may form part of a platform accessibility architecture that enables communication with assistive technologies. Web-based authoring tools are considered to make use of the document object that is maintained by the user agent. element A pair of markup tags and its content, or an "empty tag" (one that requires no closing tag or content). end user A person who interacts with web content once it has been authored. This includes people using assistive technologies. human language Language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means) to communicate with humans. informative For information purposes and not required for conformance. keyboard interface An interface used by software to obtain keystroke input. A keyboard interface can allows keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a conventional keyboard (e.g., a touchscreen PDA can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected). Keyboard-operated mouse emulators, such as MouseKeys, do not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because these emulators use pointing device interfaces, not keyboard interfaces. keyboard trap

platform accessibility architecture . Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance. A label is presented to all users whereas the name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. Windows. The name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. In many (but not all) cases the name and the label are the same. non-text content Any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be recognized or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. this will be user agents. JVM). presentation or semantics of content. In the case of nonweb-based user interfaces this will be operating systems (e. platform The software environment within which the authoring tool operates. etc. Mac OS. emoticons..A user interface situation in which the keyboard may be used to move focus to. Examples of markup languages include HTML and SVG. In many (but not all) cases. the label and the name are the same. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters).g. In the case of web-based authoring user interfaces. and images representing text. a control or group of controls. option When an author is presented with choices. virtual machines (e. whereas a label is presented to all users. The markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content. but not from. One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document. Linux). normative Required for conformance. label Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to users to identify a component. name Text by which software can identify a component to the user.g. elements in HTML) and processing rules that may be used to specify the structure. markup language A system of text annotations (e..g..

prominence A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (e. Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome applications. spacing. etc.0 so that the user agent can pass on the information.g.g. plug-in A program that runs as part of the authoring tool (e. color). a dialog box for text boxes). AXAPI for Mac OSX applications..0. and item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows item B..A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e.. and even the modality of use (e. the reading order position.g. For web-based user interfaces . visual properties (e. a menu for menu items.g.g. item A is considered to be at least as prominent as item B if: both items occur in the same item container (e.. size.. single controls. Prominence is affected by numerous factors. this means making use of a platform accessibility architecture. text messages) in a user interface that they are operating. and encourage authors. MSAA and UI Automation for Windows applications. On some platforms. a list for list items. a third-party checking and repair tool) and that is not part of web content being edited.. if item B is emphasized. presentation Rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by authors or end users. For non-web-based user interfaces. including: the number of navigation steps required. prompt Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors. Well designed prompting will urge. Authors generally choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool. it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object. For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2. to extract and present the information in different modalities. . mouse vs. programmatically determined (programmatically determinable) When information is encoded in a way that allows different software. including assistive technologies. suggest. this means following WCAG 2. then so is item A. groups of controls.). keyboard use). Java Access for Java applications.g.

names.0 identifies three types of repairing. roles or relationships. based on increasing levels of automation: manual: where the repairs are carried out by authors. but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure. Irreversible actions are actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with. repairing (accessibility) The process by which web content accessibility problems that have been identified within web content are resolved. uploading a web page. if this relationship was appropriately encoded (e. can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was in before the action. and automated: where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors. the conformance claim must list the recognized types. by their nature. ATAG 2. tool-recognized alternative content). such as labels. If success criteria apply to recognized types of content (e. reversible actions Authoring actions that. recognized (by the authoring tool) When an authoring tool is able to process encoded information.. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool. committing a change in a wiki). relationships Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content. role .g. an authoring tool would only be able to recognize a particular text string as a text label for non-text content. by a labeledby property). semi-automated: where the repairs are partially carried out by the authoring tool.g.g.. but where authors' input or judgment is still required to complete the repair. in an alt attribute.. with certainty.publishing The point at which the authors or authoring tool make web content available to end users (e. For example.

g. CSS. Examples include web browsers. video The technology of moving pictures or images.. PDF. document templates. Video can be made up of animated or photographic images. data formats. presentation themes). or check box).Text or a number by which software can identify the function of a component within web content (e. command button. technology (web content) A mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered. and JavaScript. SVG. Flash. a string that indicates whether an image functions as a hyperlink. renders and facilitates end user interaction with web content. or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic web applications. template selection mechanism A function beyond standard file selection that allows authors to select templates to use as the basis for new content or to apply to existing content. or both. user interface component A part of the user interface or content display (including content renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a distinct function. browser plug-ins. Often templates will pre-specify at least some authoring decisions.g. PNG. content management templates. and media players.. view . played or executed by user agents. Some common examples of web content technologies include HTML. user agent Any software that retrieves. tutorial A type of documentation that provides step-by-step instructions for performing multi-part tasks. Web content technologies may include markup languages. template A content pattern that is filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users (e.

plain text editors).A user interface function that authors use to interact with the web content being edited. as content rendering. There are two recommended ways to refer to the "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.g. Appendix B: How to refer to ATAG 2. There are three approaches to presenting the content in a view: as source content in which the unrendered content is presented (e.0 from other documents This section is informative. content in one web content technology or non-web content technology (e. ATAG 2. a word processing format to HTML) or optimized (e. splitting a document into pages). and as pre-built content in which authors set only high-level options that the authoring tool then interprets to generate the resulting content (e. web content that has been restructured (linearizing tables.g. a word processing format) and produces as output. If an authoring tool is composed of a collection of software components. WYSIWYG This is an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". A WYSIWYG view displays (to authors) the content being edited in a way that is very similar to how it will appear to end users. a calendar module in a content management system).g.g.g... workflow A customary sequence of steps or tasks authors follow to produce a content deliverable..0" (and to W3C documents in general): . re-coded (e. web content transformation A process that takes as input. re-compressing images). HTML to XHTML.. previews are not editable and present content as it would appear in a user agent. then its workflows may include use of one or more of the components..0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing and the way in which they present content: editing views are editable. removing whitespace.

The top of this document includes the relevant catalog metadata for specific references (including title. An XHTML 1. Other sections of this document explain how to build a conformance claim. Spellman.org/TR/." For example.</p> For very general references to this document (where stability of content and anchors is not required).. [ATAG10] .0.w3. references (either by name or by link) should be to a specific version of the document. W3C will make every effort to make this document indefinitely available at its original address in its original form. For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports at http://www.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/ References to the latest version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.w3.w3. In almost all cases.org/TR/ATAG20/">latest version</a> of this document is available at http://www. editors' names. use the "this version" URI to refer to the current document: http://www. The <a href="http://www. Some documents listed below may have been superseded since the publication of this document. Richards.0. publication date. http://www.0 paragraph including a reference to this specific document might be written: <p><cite><a href="http://www. Appendix C: References This section is informative. "this version" URI. it may be appropriate to refer to the latest version of this document. J.0.w3. Treviranus.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/"> "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.w3. eds. and copyright information)."</a></cite> J.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/. J. W3C Recommendation.org/TR/ATAG20/.References to a specific version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.org/TR/ATAG20/." Use the "latest version" URI to refer to the most recently published document in the series: http://www.

J. Jacobs. J. Appendix D: Acknowledgments Appendix Editors: Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. C. Vanderheiden.0. B.0 ". Caldwell.0"."Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1. University of Toronto) Jeanne Spellman (W3C) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication: Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology) Ann McMeekin (Invited Expert) Sueann Nichols (IBM) Greg Pisocky (Adobe) Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. I. M. Gunderson. Hansen. Treviranus. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www. Jacobs.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/.0: . and G. Adaptive Technology Resource Centre.w3. Cooper.17 December 2002. [UAAG] "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www. Guarino Reid.. eds. [WCAG20] "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2. L." I. University of Toronto) Andrew Ronksley (Royal National Institute for the Blind) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) Jeanne Spellman (W3C) Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair. Richards. 3 February 2000. McCathieNevile. E.w3. University of Toronto) Other previously active AUWG participants and other contributors to ATAG 2. eds. and J.

This document would not have been possible without the work of those who contributed to ATAG 1.0 Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2. Giorgio Brajnik. Dana Simberkoff. Graham Oliver. Gregory Rosmaita. Daniel Dardailler. Bob Regan. Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. William Loughborough. Barry A.S. nor does mention of trade names. Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. Gregg Vanderheiden.w3. Matthias Müller-Prove. Chris Ridpath. Karen Mardahl.0. or organizations imply endorsement by the U. Heather Swayne. Phill Jenkins. Appendix E: Checklist Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.w3. University of Toronto Jeanne Spellman. Matt May. This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.0 guidelines to ATAG 2. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) under contract number ED05CO0039. Department of Education. Len Kasday. Wendy Porch. and Jason White. Judy Brewer. Marjolein Katsma. Geoff Deering.org/TR/2009/WD-ATAG20-20091029/ Editors: Jan Richards.Kynn Bartlett.org/TR/ATAG20/ Previous version: http://www.S. Michael Squillace. commercial products.S. Liddy Nevile.w3. Department of Education. Carlos Velasco.0 W3C Working Draft 08 July 2010 This version: http://www. Katie Haritos-Shea. University of Toronto Previous Editors: .org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/ Latest version: http://www. Kip Harris. Charles McCathieNevile. Government. Feigenbaum. Reed Shaffner. Wendy Chisholm. W3C Jutta Treviranus.

Publication as a Last Call Working Draft indicates that the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) believes it has addressed all substantive issues and that the document is stable. and to link to the conformance claim for more information. support. Keio).1 Decision Support" has been changed to clarify the responsibilities of the developer of the authoring tool as to which technologies require warnings. W3C liability.0) is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2. Status of This Document W3C Public Working Draft of ATAG 2. This draft integrates changes made as a result of comments received on the 29 October 2009 Public Working Draft. Since then.0" (ATAG 2.0 This is the W3C Last Call Working Draft of 8 July 2010. All Rights Reserved. trademark and document use rules apply.0 conformance. and promote the production of accessible web content by all authors. Abstract This specification provides guidelines for designing web content authoring tools that are both (1) more accessible to authors with disabilities and (2) designed to enable.2. ERCIM. Substantial changes from the 29 October 2009 draft include: The ATAG Working Group (AUWG) has approved a number of requests for changes to improve the clarity of the document. . The first public Working Draft of ATAG 2. The conformance section now specifically waives "accessibility-supported ways of using technologies" from WCAG 2.0 for evaluating ATAG 2. because WCAG 2. The success criteria "B.1. the AUWG has published nine Working Drafts and one previous Last Call Working Draft.Matt May (until June 2005 while at W3C) Copyright © 2010 W3C® (MIT. See How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process for more background on document maturity levels. addressed hundreds of issues and developed implementation support information for the guidelines.0 accessibility support is typically not evaluated until the content is created.0 was published 14 March 2003.

The authoring tool will now require a check for success criteria that the author has the ability to violate.2. referenceable version. This is a draft document and may be updated.2.org/TR/. Comments on the draft should be sent to public-atag2-comments@w3.org (Public Archive). The goals of the AUWG are discussed in the Working Group charter.0 [ATAG10] is the stable. The AUWG is part of the WAI Technical Activity. Until that time Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 1. replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. 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.0 in conjunction with WCAG 2.The success criteria "B.0 address the shortcomings of ATAG 1.0 as a W3C Recommendation.0? Since authoring tool developers will need to use ATAG 2. Other documents may supersede this document.w3. May be Superseded This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. are the documents sufficiently similar in style and approach to be effective? Do users with disabilities think that their needs have been addressed with regard to Section A? Is the conformance claim process usable by developers of authoring tool software? Comments on this working draft are due on or before 2 September 2010. instead of being required to test every success criteria. The Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AUWG) intends to publish ATAG 2.0. Web Accessibility Initiative This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). This Working Draft does not supersede ATAG 1. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.0. No Endorsement Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. . The Working Group seeks feedback on the following points for this draft: Does ATAG 2.1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A)" has been changed to make it more flexible.

3: Editing views must be operable Principle A.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled Principle B.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated Conformance Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content Principle B. that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent.Patents This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines Principle A.2: Editing views must be perceivable Principle A.0 . W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.0 Layers of Guidance Understanding Levels of Conformance Integration of Accessibility Features ATAG 2.0 Guidelines PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible Principle A.4: Editing views must be understandable PART B: Support the production of accessible content Principle B. Table of Contents Abstract Status of This Document Introduction ATAG 2.

whose needs are met by ensuring that all authors are enabled.0. supported.Levels of Conformance Conformance Claims "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement Disclaimer Appendix A: Glossary Appendix B: How to refer to ATAG 2. including blindness and low vision.0. whose needs are met by ensuring that the authoring tool user interface itself is accessible (addressed by Part A of the guidelines). deafness and hearing loss.0 Introduction This section is informative. and end users of web content. speech difficulties. Accessibility. WCAG 2. from an authoring tool perspective.0 recommends that authoring tools be capable of producing web content that conforms with WCAG 2. and others. which includes several normative notes. Notes: The term "authoring tools" has a specific definition in ATAG 2. motor difficulties. appears in the Glossary. and guided towards producing accessible web content (addressed by Part B of the guidelines). cognitive limitations.0 notes that even content that . ATAG 2.0. The definition. This is a Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version 2.0 from other documents Appendix C: References Appendix D: Acknowledgments Appendix E: Checklist Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2. learning disabilities. However. This document includes recommendations for assisting authoring tool developers to make the authoring tools that they develop more accessible to people with disabilities. includes addressing the needs of two (potentially overlapping) user groups with disabilities: authors of web content.

For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see: Essential Components of Web Accessibility Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) Overview ATAG 2. by any author (not just those with disabilities). In order to meet the varying needs of this audience. The guidelines are not testable. or combinations of disability. authoring tool purchasers. Guidelines: Under the principles are guidelines. Level AAA) may not be "accessible to individuals with all types.0 Layers of Guidance The individuals and organizations that may use ATAG 2.0 vary widely and include authoring tool developers. Principles: Each of the two parts includes several high-level principles that organize the guidelines. Part B Applicability Notes). Parts: ATAG 2. testable success criteria and an Implementing ATAG 2.0 document. Each guideline includes a brief rationale for why the guideline was included. of web content that is accessible to end users with disabilities. Each part includes normative applicability notes that apply to all of the success criteria within that part (see Part A Applicability Notes. each reflecting a key aspect of accessible authoring tools. and policy makers. authoring tool users (authors). but provide the framework and overall objectives to help authoring tool developers understand the success criteria. but is beyond the scope of this document. Part A relates to ensuring the accessibility of authoring tool user interfaces to authors with disabilities. degrees. overall principles..conforms to the highest level of WCAG 2. Authoring tools are just one aspect of web accessibility. Development of authoring tools that address more specialized needs is encouraged. . Part B relates to ensuring support by authoring tools for the creation.0 does not include standard usability recommendations. several layers of guidance are provided including two parts. general guidelines.0 is divided into two parts. particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas". ATAG 2.e. except where they have a significantly greater impact on people with disabilities than on other people. The guidelines provide the basic goals that authoring tool developers should work toward in order to make authoring tools more accessible to both authors and end users of web content with different disabilities.0 (i.

Success Criteria: For each guideline. all success criteria must present authoring tool user interface-related accessibility issues.0 document) work together to provide guidance on how to make authoring tools more accessible. These include: For Part A.0 document provides additional non-normative information for each success criterion.0 document: The Implementing ATAG 2.0.0. the user interface issue must cause a proportionately greater problem for authors with disabilities than it causes authors without disabilities and must be specific to authoring tool software. there are a number of conditions that must be met for a success criterion to be included in ATAG 2. Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part A included: . and the Implementing ATAG 2. regulation. and contractual agreements. The success criteria can be tested by a combination of machine and human evaluation as long as it is possible to determine whether a success criterion has been satisfied with a high level of confidence. Understanding Levels of Conformance In order to ensure that the process of using ATAG 2. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations. principles. In other words. multiple levels of full and partial conformance are defined (see Levels of Conformance). In other words.0 together in the development of authoring tools is as simple as possible. The success criteria were assigned to one of the three levels of conformance by the Working Group after taking into consideration a wide range of interacting issues. All success criteria must also be testable. as opposed to the production of web content in general. testable success criteria are provided to allow ATAG 2. the issue must be specific to the production of accessible web content by authoring tools. all success criteria must present accessible web content production issues. This is important since otherwise it would not be possible to determine whether an authoring tool met or failed to meet the success criteria. For Part B. AAA (highest).0 shares WCAG 2.0's three level conformance model: Level A (lowest). including a description of the intent of the success criterion. Authoring tool developers are encouraged to review all of the layers.0 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification. ATAG 2. AA (middle). As with WCAG 2. purchasing.0 and WCAG 2. Implementing ATAG 2. as opposed to software in general. success criteria. All of these layers of guidance (parts. examples and links to related resources. guidelines.

0. Close integration has the potential to: produce a more seamless product. make authors more receptive to new accessibility-related authoring requirements.) whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools (e.. whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools (e.. then even authors with a high degree of accessibility expertise would be unlikely to produce accessible web content using an authoring tool) whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for the production of all web content technologies that the success criteria would apply to.g.g. if the success criterion is not met.g. aesthetic or freedom of expression of authoring tool developers) Integration of Accessibility Features When implementing ATAG 2. WYSIWYG editors. content management systems. text editors. then even assistive technology cannot make the authoring tool user interface accessible) whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for all types of authoring tools that the success criteria would apply to (e. limits on the function. whether the success criterion requires features that would reasonably be used by authors. etc. design. and reduce the likelihood of author confusion. leverage the existing knowledge and skills of authors.. Guidelines .whether the success criterion is essential (in other words. it is recommended that authoring tool developers closely integrate features that support accessible authoring with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. if the success criterion is not met. aesthetic or freedom of expression of authoring tool developers) whether there are workarounds for authors with disabilities if the success criterion is not met Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part B included: whether the success criterion is essential (in other words. limits on the function. design.

Previews are treated differently than editing views because all authors. status bars. where an authoring tool user interface accessibility problem is caused directly by a web content accessibility problem in the content being edited (e. then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface.The success criteria and applicability notes in this section are normative. User agent features: Web-based authoring tools may rely on user agent features (e. such as menus. PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible Applicability Notes: Scope of authoring tool user interface: The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the authoring tool developer. benefit when preview features accurately reflect the actual functionality of user agents. etc.. Reflected web content accessibility problems: The authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that editing views display the web content being edited in a way that is accessible to authors with disabilities (e. documentation. This includes views of the web content being edited and features that are independent of the content being edited. as long as they meet Guideline A..1. user preferences. display preferences. etc.g.g.1. If a conformance claim is made.. However. including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.). The only exemption is for preview features. PRINCIPLE A. etc.1] .) to satisfy success criteria. keyboard navigation.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines Guideline A. Features for meeting Part A must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface. button bars. search functions. the claim cites the user agent. undo features. [Implementing A.g. find functions. including those with disabilities.3..g. documentation. if an image in the content lacks a label). ensuring that a text alternative in the content can be programmatically determined).7.1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible.

including those using assistive technologies.1. [Implementing A.2.2.1] Note: If a conformance claim is made.0 Level AAA.1. then the alternative content is provided to authors.2.1. conforming to WCAG 2. PRINCIPLE A. (Level AA) [Implementing A. (Level A) [Implementing A.3] Guideline A. the claim cites the accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that were followed.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible: Non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces follow accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that support accessibility. a client-side file uploader for a web-based content management system).Rationale: When authoring tools or parts of authoring tools (e. following existing accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that support accessibility will facilitate access by all authors.2] .2. including those using assistive technologies.2.2: Editing views must be perceivable Guideline A.2.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level A): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2.2..g.2.1. (Level A) [Implementing A.0 Level A.1.1..1.0 will facilitate access by all authors. A.1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Make alternative content available to authors.2 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level AA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2.1. (Level A) [Implementing A.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Editing view presentation can be programmatically determined. [Implementing A.1.1. an online help system) are web-based.1. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.1] Guideline A.2] A.2] Rationale: When authoring tools or parts of authoring tools are non-web-based (e.1 Recognized Alternative Content: If recognized alternative content is available for editing view content renderings.3 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that non-web-based functionality is accessible.1.1.g.1.1] Rationale: Some authors require access to alternative content in order to interact with the web content that they are editing.1] A.1.1. A.1.0 Level AA. [Implementing A. A.1.

2.2.2. then that additional information can be programmatically determined.1 Independence of Display: Authors can set their own display settings for editing views (including WYSIWYG views) without affecting the web content to be published. .2. A.3. A.3: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure the independence of authors' display preferences. [Implementing A.2. and instead require full keyboard access.1 Purpose of Added Presentation: If an editing view modifies the presentation of web content to provide additional information to authors.3: Editing views must be operable Guideline A.3] Rationale: Some authors need to set their own display settings in a way that differs from the presentation that they want to define for the published web content. italic.2. within content renderings. underlining misspelled words) and..1] Rationale: Some authors with limited mobility or visual disabilities are not able to use a mouse.2. and (b) Text Style (e.2. (Level A) [Implementing A. (Level A) [Implementing A. and (c) Text Color.g. then those properties can be programmatically determined: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.3] Guideline A.g.2.g.2.2.2.1] A.3.2.1] PRINCIPLE A.Rationale: Some authors need access to the editing view presentation because this may be used to convey both status information added by the authoring tool (e.3. bold).2..1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features. WYSIWYG view) renders any of the following presentation properties for text. then those properties can be programmatically determined.3 Access to Text Presentation (Enhanced): If an editing view (e. information about the end user experience of the web content being edited.g.2. WYSIWYG view) renders any presentation properties for text..2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an editing view (e. A.2. and (d) Text Size. [Implementing A.2] (a) Text Font. (Level AAA) [Implementing A..

g. A. [Implementing A.4 Keyboard Access (Enhanced): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface..1] Note 1: This exception relates to the nature of web content.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided. (Level AA) [Implementing A. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.1.3.g.3. operating the mouse.1. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.3.5 Customize Keyboard Access: Keyboard access to the authoring tool can be customized. or processing information can be prevented from using systems with short time limits or requiring a fast reaction speed. not the usual input technique.1.3.A.1. and (b) In Editing Views that Render Web Content: If an editing view renders web content (e.1.3. For example. except where editing web content properties that encode continuous input. then focus can be moved away from that component using standard keyboard navigation commands (e.4] A.. such as clicking on a moving target.3. WYSIWYG view).3] A.1. (Level AAA) [Implementing A. A. the menus).6] Guideline A. setting the path of a freehand curve is exempt.1.5] A.3. Note 2: This should not be interpreted as discouraging mouse input or other input methods in addition to the keyboard interface.6 Present Keyboard Commands: Authoring tool user interface controls can be presented with any associated keyboard commands. .3. (Level A) [Implementing A.1.2] (a) In the Authoring Tool User Interface: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using the keyboard.3. while setting the endpoints of a straight line is not.g. then a documented keyboard command is provided that will always restore keyboard focus to a known location (e.3.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide authors with enough time.1.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface. TAB key).3.2 No Content Keyboard Traps: Keyboard traps are prevented as follows: (Level A) [Implementing A..2] Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing.3.3.1.1.

or (e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity.3.4] .3] Rationale: Flashing can cause seizures in authors with photosensitive seizure disorder.3 Static Pointer Targets: User interface components that accept pointer input are either stationary or authors can pause the movement.. or (b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting.4] Guideline A. or (f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours. a collaborative authoring system).3.4: [For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance navigation and editing via content structure. (Level AAA) [Implementing A. (Level A) [Implementing A. "press the space bar").3.3.2.2.2. A.2. or (d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e. (Level A) [Implementing A.3.3.1 Data Saved (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits.3.2.2. then the authoring tool saves all submitted content edits made by authors. and no alternative to the time limit is possible.3. animations) in editing views can be turned off.3: [For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures.2.3. A..4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): The authoring tool can be set to save all content edits made by authors.2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool.g.3] A.g. and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times.2.3. [Implementing A.1 Static View Option: Rendering of time-based content (e. or (c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.1] A. [Implementing A..3.A. (Level A) [Implementing A.2] (a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it.3.3. then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.1] Guideline A.3.g.3.3.

and (b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards.Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools make use of the structure present in web content to simplify the tasks of navigation and editing the content.2] Guideline A.5: [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content. A.6] .3.3.4.3.1] (a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable.4. markup elements and attributes.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows: (Level AA) [Implementing A. [Implementing A.3. and (c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes. (Level A) [Implementing A.5] Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to use text search to navigate to arbitrary points within the web content being authored. (Level A) [Implementing A. text alternatives for non-text content. A.3. Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search.1 Edit By Structure: Editing views for structured web content include editing mechanism(s) that can make use of the structure.3.3. Guideline A. including: text content.3.5.1] A.3.4.3.5.4.6: [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.2 Navigate By Structure: Editing views for structured web content include navigation mechanism(s) that can make use of the structure. metadata. then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results. [Implementing A.

then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.3.6. [Implementing A.6.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings. Authors with disabilities need to be able to follow the same workflow. (Level AA) [Implementing A. (Level AAA) [Implementing A..3.6.7: [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that previews are as accessible as existing user agents. A. or (b) UAAG (Level A): The preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A [UAAG].7.7.3.3.3.4 Preferences Assistance: The authoring tool includes a mechanism to help authors configure any preference settings related to Part A of this document. [Implementing A.4] Guideline A.3.3] A.1: [For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid and correct mistakes.1 Return Mechanism: If a preview is provided.3.3. (Level AAA) [Implementing A.6.3 Multiple Sets: Authors can save and reload multiple sets of any authoring tool display settings and control settings.2.3.7. A.1] A.1] A.1] .3.3.2 Preview: If a preview is provided.6.2] (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent.4.7. then authors can return from the preview using only keyboard commands.2] Note: As per Success Criterion A.1.6. PRINCIPLE A. (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.4: Editing views must be understandable Guideline A. due to fatigue).Rationale: Providing the ability to save and reload sets of keyboard and display preference settings benefits authors who have needs that differ over time (e.3. authors' display settings must still be independent of the web content being edited.6.3.4.6.7] Rationale: Preview features are provided in many authoring tools because the workflow of authors often includes periodically checking how user agents will display the web content to end users.1 Save Settings: Any authoring tool display settings and control settings are saved between authoring sessions.g. (Level A) [Implementing A. A.

1] Note 1: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions (e. typed words.1] A.2] PART B: Support the production of accessible content Applicability Notes: Author availability: Any Part B success criteria that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions. the authoring tool is not . [Implementing A. etc. (Level A) [Implementing A.4.1 Document Accessibility Features: All features that are specifically required to meet Part A of this document (e.2.2: [For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface including all accessibility features.1.3] Guideline A.4..1 Undo Content Changes: Authoring actions are either reversible by an "undo" function or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible. if the author includes a third-party feed in their web content.2 Undo Setting Changes: Actions that modify authoring tool settings are either reversible or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible.1.) are documented. "save".2.Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty making fine movements may be prone to making unintended actions.2] Rationale: Some authors may not be able to understand or operate the authoring tool user interface without proper accessible documentation.2.g. A.4.1. A.4.1..4. (Level AA) [Implementing A. For example. a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.g. (Level AA) [Implementing A. keyboard shortcuts.4. the requirements of Part B only apply during authoring sessions. (Level A) [Implementing A.g.4.4.4. text search. A.2.4.4. Applicability after the end of an authoring session: For author-generated content. (Level A) [Implementing A.3 Undo is Reversible: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent "undo" action(s).4.1. "publish") to make all previous authoring actions irreversible. Note 2: It is acceptable for certain committing actions (e.2 Document All Features: All features of the authoring tool are documented.2] A.1.

1.2 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level AA): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2. etc.). (Level AA) [Implementing B.1: Support web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible. For example.g. Multiple author roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles. not to the view provided to any particular author role.1.1] Rationale: For the purposes of this document. [Implementing B. repair tools. Part B continues to apply after the end of the authoring session. for automatically-generated content.g.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled Guideline B. if the site-wide templates of a content management system are updated. documentation.1..1.1. these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automaticallygenerated content. content authors. the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole. checking tools.1.0 Level A.1.0 using the authoring tool. at minimum. (Level A) [Implementing B.1] B. To support accessible web content production. a content management system may separate the roles of designers. In contrast. Features for meeting Part B must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface.0 Level AA.. B. PRINCIPLE B. and quality assurers).1 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level A): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2. WCAG 2.. an authoring tool could make use of a thirdparty software accessibility checking and repair tool).g.0 defines the accessible web content requirements. including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part B (e. In these cases.0 definition of authoring tool. Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.1.1. several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.required to provide checking for web content accessibility problems in that feed after the end of the authoring session. each with different views and content editing permissions (e.1. it must be possible to produce web content that conforms with WCAG 2.2] . tutorials.

2 End Product Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the web content technology of the output of a web content transformation cannot preserve recognized accessibility information (WCAG 2.1.2. (Level AA) [Implementing B. B.g.1.1.2.g.0 Level AAA) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.1] B.2.2. or (b) Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion. .1.1.0 Level AAA. saving a structured graphic to a raster image format).2.0 Level A) (e. or (c) No Deletion Option: Authors have the option to prevent automatic deletion by the authoring tool. if allowed by the web content technology of the output. as a backup copy of the input).B.2] Rationale: Accessibility information is critical to maintaining comparable levels of accessibility between the input and output of web content transformations.2. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.1.3] B.3 Preserve Accessibility Information (Enhanced): Any accessibility information (up to WCAG 2.2.2..1. then at least one of the following is true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.4 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason.1.0 Level A) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.3 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level AAA): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2.4] (a) Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information. or (b) Warning: authors are warned that this will result in web content accessibility problems in the output.1.1.1.1.3] Guideline B.2: Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information. as a "comment". [Implementing B.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (Minimum): Any accessibility information (WCAG 2.1.. then at least one of the following are true: (Level A) [Implementing B.2] (a) Option to Save: authors have the option to save the accessibility information in another way (e.1. (Level A) [Implementing B. B.

.3.. provide faulty accessibility information.3] Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer.3 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content. [Implementing B. authors might set less strict preferences.2.. etc. authors might set less strict preferences. It does not apply when actions of authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e. B.2 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content.0 Level A prior to publishing.1. provide faulty accessibility information.3. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content . ignore prompts for accessibility information.). write their own automated scripts.3. then that web content conforms to WCAG 2.1.Guideline B.1. ignore prompts for accessibility information. see Guideline B. It does not apply when actions of the authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.1.g. ignore prompts for accessibility information.g.2] Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer.0 Level AA prior to publishing.3.g.3.1. See Also: If accessibility information is required from authors during the automatic generation process. provide faulty accessibility information.5. write their own automated scripts. then that web content conforms to WCAG 2. PRINCIPLE B.1.1. write their own automated scripts.3: Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible. etc. authors might set less strict preferences.1. etc. (Level A) [Implementing B.). B.3.1] Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer.1 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically generates content.).1. It does not apply when actions of the authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.3] Rationale: Authoring tools that automatically generate content that is not accessible impose additional repair tasks on authors.2. then that web content conforms to WCAG 2. If templates or other pre-authored content are involved. (Level AA) [Implementing B.0 Level AAA prior to publishing. see Guideline B.

1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of producing a web content technology for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content. the .2.g..1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2.Guideline B. attribute values. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion.1.2.2.1: Guide authors to create accessible content. so they can be immediately addressed.3 Other Technologies: If the authoring tool can insert web content that it cannot subsequently edit. etc.2.0 Level A Success Criterion can be violated.2.2.2.2.2] B. However.2. [Implementing B. In manual checking.1] Rationale: By guiding authors from the outset towards the creation and maintenance of accessible web content.) also can be used to set the accessibility-related properties.2. authors can access a list of technologies for which the authoring tool does provide support for the production of accessible content.2: Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.1.3] Guideline B. (Level A) [Implementing B.2 Set Accessible Properties: Mechanisms that set web content properties (e. then authors can associate accessibility information with that web content.1] (a) Warning: Authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content for that technology.g.2.1. B. then both of the following are true: (Level A) [Implementing B.2.2] Rationale: Accessibility checking as an integrated function of the authoring tool helps make authors aware of web content accessibility problems during the authoring process.2.1. a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions). an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text. [Implementing B. web content accessibility problems are mitigated and less repair effort is required. (Level A) [Implementing B.. B.2.1.1. (Level A) [Implementing B. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided (e. and (b) List: From the warning. B.1] Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.

e.2. For more information on checking. B.2.5] Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. In manual checking. manual checking and semi-automated checking). etc. (Level AA) [Implementing B..2. displaying line numbers.2.2. see Implementing ATAG 2.0 .2.3] B.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.2.2.4 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i. (Level AA) [Implementing B. etc.g.. instructions are provided to help authors decide whether it is correctly identified. (Level AA) [Implementing B.2. (Level A) [Implementing B. B. However. which authors must carry out by themselves. the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.2.2 Availability: Checking is available prior to publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks.2] B.3 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i. which authors must carry out by themselves. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. For example.2.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata.2. (Level A) [Implementing B. highlighting the affected content.2. the relevant content is identified (e.0 Level AA Success Criterion can be violated.6] Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. specific check results..2.2.0 . then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided. summary conformance claims.2.2. For more information on checking.g.2.e.0 conformance level.2.4] B. manual checking and semi-automated checking).5 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2.) .2. see Implementing ATAG 2.) (Level A) [Implementing B.2.authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems.2..2. etc. B.2.7] Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems.

0 Level A web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Guideline B.2.2. see Implementing ATAG 2. see Implementing ATAG 2.2. see Implementing ATAG 2. However. repair assistance is provided. [Implementing B. For more information on repair.0 .0 .2. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems. which authors must carry out by themselves. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. (Level AA) [Implementing B. However.B.2. (Level A) [Implementing B.5). . manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. For more information on checking.3.2.3: Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems.2.8 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2.2.3. In manual repair. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. B.0 Level AAA Success Criterion can be violated.1 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level A): For each WCAG 2.8] Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation.2 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level AA): For each WCAG 2.3. which authors must carry out by themselves. For more information on repair.2.3. However.3] Rationale: Repair as an integral part of the authoring process greatly enhances the utility of checking and increases the likelihood that accessibility problems will be properly addressed.2. B.2.2. In manual checking.2] Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.2. which authors must carry out by themselves.0 .2).1] Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. Guideline B. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems.Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. In manual repair. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided. repair assistance is provided.0 Level AA web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Success Criterion B.

4. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems...g.3] Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.4] Rationale: Improperly generated alternative content can create accessibility problems and interfere with accessibility checking.2.2. This includes types of alternative content that may not typically be displayed on screen by user agents.2..4.3 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level AAA): For each WCAG 2.g.B.2.0 Level AAA web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Success Criterion B. [Implementing B. which authors must carry out by themselves. see Implementing ATAG 2.3 Let User Agents Repair: After the end of an authoring session. When non-text content is automatically added by the authoring tool. and (b) Relevant Sources: The suggested alternative content is only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.1] B.1 Editable: Authors are able to modify alternative content for non-text content.2. the authoring tool can automatically suggest alternative content for non-text content only under the following conditions: (Level A) [Implementing B. the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative content for non-text content using text value that is equally available to user agents (e.4.4.2] (a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept.g. inserts an image). Guideline B. or reject the suggested alternative content prior to insertion.2. B.2.4.3.2. For more information on repair. modify.8). B. (Level A) [Implementing B.2 Automated Suggestions: During the authoring session. However.0 .2. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion.3] . See Also: This guideline applies when non-text content is specified by authors (e. the filename is not used).3. repair assistance is provided. In manual repair.4.2. see Guideline B. suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).2.2.Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation.3. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. (Level A) [Implementing B.1.4: Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.

2] B.5.4] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known). then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B. etc.2. (Level AA) [Implementing B. (Level A) [Implementing B.g.5. B.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e. and (b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.2. [Implementing B.2.2. clip art.4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism.4] Guideline B. reducing the effort required of authors.2.2.2.5.5.4.4.5.B. B. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.g.0 Level AA when used.5] Rationale: Providing accessible templates and other pre-authored content (e. then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses.5. (Level A) [Implementing B. .. B. synchronized media.3 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content.2. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly. including: immediately improving the accessibility of web content being edited. long descriptions) stored for future reuse.2.2.5: Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.2.3] Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. widgets. short text labels. (Level AA) [Implementing B. then the selections conform to WCAG 2.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates.5.1] Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness.2. then the selections conform to WCAG 2.5.) can have several benefits.1 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content..0 Level A when used. and demonstrating the importance of accessible web content.

5. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.9] Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness.1] Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring tool.5. .6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.0 Level AAA when used.8] B. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. rather than inaccessible content.2. they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they encounter that achieves their intended outcome.B. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. clip art gallery.1: Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence.5.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated Guideline B.2.g. PRINCIPLE B.2.2.2.5.2.7] B.6] (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the preauthored content (if known). then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status.5.3.5.2.5. (Level AA) [Implementing B. then the selections conform to WCAG 2..5 New Templates: If authors can use the authoring tool to create new templates for use by a template selection mechanism.5.7 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2. B.2. they have the option to record the accessibility status of the new templates. widget repository.9 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content.2. and (b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other preauthored content options. Since they may be unaware of the issue of accessibility.5.5] B. design themes). then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B. [Implementing B. it is preferable that accessible web content be an additional unintended outcome.3. then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status.5.

2.2 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level AA): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.1 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level A): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.2.2.3] B.1.3. (Level A) [Implementing B. (Level A) [Implementing B..3.g.3.0 Level A are at least as prominent as options that will not.3.1] B. styling text).2: Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available.2.3.2] B..1] B. styling text).2.4] Guideline B.2] B.3: Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented.3. (Level AA) [Implementing B.1. syntax errors. [Implementing B.3.2.2] Rationale: The accessible content support features will be more likely to be used if they are turned on and are afforded reasonable prominence within the authoring tool user interface.2.3.2 Reactivate Option: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature. then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems.3] Guideline B.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e. invalid markup.g.3.3. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2. (Level A) [Implementing B. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2. [Implementing B. B.3 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level AAA): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. styling text).1. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2.3.1.0 Level AAA are at least as prominent as options that will not.2.1 Active by Default: All accessible content support features are turned on by default.g.3.1.3.. then they can always turn the feature back on.g..3. spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA) [Implementing B.3 Deactivation Warning: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature.0 Level AA are at least as prominent as options that will not.3] .B.1.3. (Level AA) [Implementing B.3.3.3.

4. B. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2. (Level AAA) [Implementing B. markup.g.4.1 Instructions: Instructions for using the accessible content support features appear in the documentation. markup.0 Level AAA accessible authoring practices..3] Conformance This section is normative. (Level A) [Implementing B.3.3.Rationale: Without documentation of the features that support the production of accessible content (e.0 . This conformance section describes conformance and lists the conformance requirements.g. some authors may not be able to use them.g.0 Level A accessible authoring practices.3. [Implementing B.3. Conformance means that the authoring tool satisfies the success criteria defined in the guidelines section.3. (Level AA) [Implementing B. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.4: Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible.4.3.2] B. markup.g.1 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level A): A range of examples in the documentation (e.3. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2.4.3 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level AAA): A range of examples in the documentation (e.3. (Level A) [Implementing B.3.3.2 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level AA): A range of examples in the documentation (e. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2.2 Accessible Authoring Tutorial: A tutorial on an accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided.3. accessibility checking tools).4] Rationale: Demonstrating accessible authoring as routine practice will encourage its acceptance by some authors.3. prompts for text alternatives.1] B..3.3.2] Guideline B. Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2..0 Level AA accessible authoring practices. B.3.3.4.1] B.4..

" In broad terms. it is possible to assess the WCAG 2.0 conformance.0 accessibility-supported requirement is met.0 frequently refers to WCAG 2. However. including whether the WCAG 2. monolingual sites versus multilingual sites. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported. supported.0 conformance of the web content that the authoring tool produces.g..0 conformance in order to set requirements for (1) the accessibility of web-based authoring tool user interfaces (in Part A) and (2) how authors should be enabled. ATAG 2. the accessibility-supported requirement is waived. This concept is not easily extended to authoring tools because many authoring tools can be installed and used in a variety of environments with differing availabilities for assistive technologies and user agents (e.0 is the requirement that "only accessibilitysupported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the [WCAG 2.0 conformance assessment would be completely independent of the authoring tool's conformance with ATAG 2.0 [WCAG20] is the most recent W3C Recommendation regarding web content accessibility. private intranets versus public websites. Therefore: For the purposes of ATAG 2.0 considers a web content technology to be accessibility supported when (1) the way that the web content technology is used is supported by users' assistive technology and (2) the web content technology has accessibilitysupported user agents that are available to end users. this WCAG 2.Because WCAG 2.0. WCAG 2. and guided towards producing accessible web content (in Part B). etc. Conformance Requirements . Once an authoring tool has been installed and put into use.0] success criteria. Note on "accessibility-supported ways of using technologies": Part of conformance to WCAG 2.).

In either case.0 Conformance at Level AA The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria.0 Conformance at Level A The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria. Nothing is implied about Part B. "Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Authoring Tool User Interface: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the authoring tool to authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible): Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level AA: Authoring Tool User Interface .In order for an authoring tool to conform to ATAG 2. "Full" ATAG 2. Full ATAG 2. the level of conformance depends on the level of the success criteria that have been satisfied.0.0. all of the following conformance requirements must be satisfied: Conformance Levels: Authoring tools may conform "fully" or "partially" to ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level AAA The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria. Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level A: Authoring Tool User Interface The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part A. And the Part A Applicability Notes and Part B Applicability Notes have been applied. Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have considered the accessibility of the authoring tools from both the perspective of authors (Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible) and the perspective of end users of web content produced by the authoring tools (Part B: Support the production of accessible content): Full ATAG 2.

"Partial" ATAG 2. Partial ATAG 2. Nothing is implied about Part B. Note: The Working Group remains committed to the guiding principle that: "Everyone should have the ability to create and access web content". And the Part A Applicability Notes have been applied. Nothing is implied about Part B. And the Part B Applicability Notes have been applied. Partial ATAG 2. Nothing is implied about Part A. Web Content Technologies Produced: .0 Conformance Level AAA: Authoring Tool User Interface The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part A. Therefore. it is recommended that "Partial" Conformance be claimed only as a step towards "Full" Conformance.0 Conformance Level AAA: Content Production The authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria in Part B.The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part A.0 Conformance Level AA: Content Production The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A and Level AA success criteria in Part B. Nothing is implied about Part A.0 Conformance: Content Production: This type of conformance is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the web content produced by the authoring tool to end users (Part B: Support the production of accessible content): Partial ATAG 2. Partial ATAG 2. Nothing is implied about Part A.0 Conformance Level A: Content Production The authoring tool satisfies all of the Level A success criteria in Part B.

the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance claim must be included. it is referring to this subset.1.0 without making a claim): Conditions on Conformance Claims At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the web as a document meeting Level A of WCAG 2.. Conformance Claims (Optional) If a conformance claim is made. When Success Criterion B. If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies.1).g.2.g.g.0.0 Conformance Claim". . product information web site). The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has reviewed the claim or assured its validity. The subset may include "interim" formats that are not intended for publishing to end users.0 with respect to the production of specific web content technologies (e. other third parties).1 refers to web content technologies for which the authoring tool provides support for the production of accessible content.. then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes any technologies that the developer either sets for automaticallygenerated content or sets as the default for author-generated content.0. but this is not required. Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e. journalists.Authoring tools conform to ATAG 2. A suggested metadata description for this document is "ATAG 2. Claimants may be anyone (e. Partial Level AA Conformance: Content Production with respect to the production of SVG 1. then the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information (authoring tools can conform to ATAG 2.. authoring tool developers. Full Level A conformance with respect to the production of XHTML 1.

provide links to technology-specific techniques). version number (or version range).. As stated above. or A declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a rationale for why not. then information must be provided separately for each component. vendor name.Claimants are solely responsible for the accuracy of their claims (including claims that include products for which they are not responsible) and keeping claims up to date. version and URI Conformance level satisfied. Required Components of an ATAG 2. Declarations: For each success criterion: A declaration of whether or not the success criterion has been satisfied. the Claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim. Web content technologies produced. and a validation tool). provide information on how the web content technology might be used to create accessible web content (e. an image editor.0 Conformance Claim Claimant name and affiliation. a markup editor. Date of the claim. Platform(s): The platform(s) upon which the authoring tool was evaluated: . A list of any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is not including in the conformance claim.g.. although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole.g. A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that the Claimant is including in the conformance claim. For each web content technology. Authoring tool information: The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e. human language of the user interface or documentation). Claimants are encouraged to claim conformance to the most recent version of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Recommendation.g. required patches or updates. Note: If the authoring tool is a collection of software components (e.. Guidelines title. not the developer of any of the software components.

and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. Optional Components of an ATAG 2.) and the name and version of the platform accessibility architecture(s) employed. operating system.0 Conformance Claim A description of the authoring tool that identifies the types of editing views that it includes. For platforms that are not user agents (used to evaluate non-web-based authoring tool user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the platform(s) (e. WAI. WAI.0 success criteria were met where this may not be obvious. "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular ATAG 2. This statement would be the same as a conformance claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2. or AUWG. nor AUWG take any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.For user agent platform(s) (used to evaluate web-based authoring tool user interfaces): provide the name and version information of the user agent(s). Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement. Disclaimer Neither W3C.0 conformance level that is being progressed towards. A description of how the ATAG 2. etc. The author of a "Progress Towards Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy of their statement. rather than one already satisfied. Appendix A: Glossary This section is normative.0 conformance claim that has not been published under the authority of the W3C.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress towards conformance. ..g.

. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. Examples include text alternatives for non-text content. accessibility information Any information that web content is required to contain in order to conform with a particular level of WCAG 2. separate from the authoring tool. relationships within complex tables.This appendix contains definitions for all of the significant/important/unfamiliar terms used in the normative parts of this specification.. captions for audio). features added to meet any of the success criteria in Principle B. Please consult http://www. Examples of assistive technologies include. role and state information for widgets. audio descriptions for video. See WCAG 2.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ for more information on the role of definitions in specification quality. accessibility problem ATAG 2. the following: . that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. sign language for audio. accessible content support features Any features of an authoring tool that directly support authors in increasing the accessibility of the content being edited (i. ASCII art A picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).0 refers to two types of accessibility problems: authoring tool user interface accessibility problem: An aspect of an authoring tool user interface that does not meet a success criterion in Part A of ATAG 2. including terms used in the Conformance section.w3. captions for audio. text alternatives for images. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features.g.e.0 (e.0 for more information. but are not limited to. alternative content Web content that is used in place of other content that a person may not be able to access.0 success criterion.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content). web content accessibility problem: An aspect of web content that does not meet a WCAG 2.0. assistive technology Software (or hardware). media alternatives for time-based media.

screen readers. inserting an element. etc. text-to-speech software. . which is used by some people with cognitive. Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis). designers. publishers. which are used by people who are blind to read textual information through synthesized speech or Braille. size. which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations. color. alternative keyboards.screen magnifiers. authoring action Any action that authors can take using the authoring tool user interface that results in creating or editing web content (e. and other visual reading assistants.g. speech recognition software. audio The technology of sound reproduction. which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers. working either alone or collaboratively (see also Part B Applicability Note 5). This may include content authors. programmers.. single switches. which are used by people with visual. spacing. Some authoring tools are capable of managing authoring permissions in order to prevent unauthorized modifications. perceptual and physical print disabilities to change text font. recorded from real world sounds. in order improve the visual readability of rendered text and images. language. A person only qualifies as an author of some given content if (1) the authoring tool supports the relevant web content technology used to implement that content and (2) the person has author permission for that content. which may be used by people who have some physical disabilities. testers. etc. sip/puff and other special input devices). alternative pointing devices. typing text. authors People who use an authoring tool to create or modify web content for use by other people. deleting. synchronization with speech. or both. In other words. author permission Whether a person has a right to modify given web content. whether they qualify as an author of the content. and learning disabilities to convert text into synthetic speech.

authoring tool Any software. Automatic content generation may continue after the end of both the authoring session and initial publishing (e. then styled.g.g. authoring practice An approach that authors follow to achieve a given authoring outcome. closing a document.g. authoring outcome The content or content modifications that result from authoring actions. but not limited to: web page authoring tools (e. Depending on the design of an authoring tool.. for web application development) . An accessible authoring practice is one in which the authoring outcome conforms to WCAG 2.. then given a title).g. or collection of software components.g. publishing) or by the authoring tool (e.g.applying a template). "Save as HTML" features in office suites) integrated development environments (e.0 applies to a wide variety of web content generating applications. authoring practices may be chosen by the authors or by the authoring tool. Note that the end of the authoring session is distinct from publishing.. text is entered. The end of an authoring session is the point at which the author has no further opportunity to make changes without starting another session. setting preferences... when the authoring tool transfers editing permission to another author on a collaborative system). authoring session A state of the authoring tool in which web content can be edited by an author. that authors can use to create or modify web content for use by other people. The end of an authoring session may be determined by authors (e.g. Examples of authoring tools: ATAG 2. (e. Authoring outcomes are cumulative (e. Most authoring tool user interfaces also enable actions that do not edit content (e. then made into a link. viewing documentation). content management system updates)... controlling presentation with style sheets). WYSIWYG HTML editors) software for directly editing source code (see note below) software for converting to web content technologies (e..g..0. including.g. Some accessible authoring practices require accessibility information.

0 . For these authoring tools..Appendix E: Real-time content production. a non-web-based authoring tool might have web-based help pages): authoring tool user interface (non-web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are not implemented as web content and instead run directly on a platform that is not a user agent.g.g. see the Implementing ATAG 2. For more information. scripts. Mac OS. etc. etc. In contrast.software that generates web content on the basis of templates. but that include no support for the production of any particular web content technology. commandline input or "wizard"-type processes software for rapidly updating portions of web pages (e. non-web-based or a combination (e. authoring tool user interface The display and control mechanism that authors use to operate the authoring tool software. Text Editors: ATAG 2..0 applies to authoring tools with workflows that involve real-time publishing of web content (e. . blogging.0 can apply to more sophisticated source content editors that support the production of specific web content technologies (e.. Java Virtual Machine.g. markup prediction.. Real-time publishing: ATAG 2...g. wikis.g.0 is not intended to apply to simple text editors that can be used to edit source content. a non-webbased markup editor with a web-based help system. content aggregators) email clients that send messages in web content technologies multimedia authoring tools debugging tools for web content software for creating mobile web applications Web-based and non-web-based: ATAG 2.0 applies equally to authoring tools of web content that are web-based. conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 may involve some combination of real-time accessibility supports and additional accessibility supports available after the real-time authoring session (e.). a web-based content management system with a non-web-based file uploader client). with syntax checking. some collaborative tools). User interfaces may be non-web-based or web-based or a combination (e. the ability to add captions for audio that was initially published in real-time).g.. online forums) software for generating/managing entire web sites (e. ATAG 2.g. courseware tools. such as Windows. content management systems.

authoring tool user interface (web-based): Any parts of an authoring tool user interface that are implemented using web content technologies and are accessed by authors via a user agent. and validation tool). . and interactions. Content produced by authoring tools may include web applications. Accessible web content is web content that conforms to a particular level of WCAG 2. but where authors' input or judgment is still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the tests. checking (accessibility) The process by which web content is evaluated for web content accessibility problems. as opposed to unstructured content. An accessible authoring tool user interface is one that meets the success criteria of a level in Part A.0 (see Relationship to WCAG 2.g.. including those that act as web-based authoring tools. based on increasing levels of automation of the tests: manual checking: where the tests are carried out by authors.. ATAG 2. Structured web content is content that includes machine-readable internal structure (e. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool. collection of software components Any software programs that are used either together (e.0. such as raster image formats or plain human language text. An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types. In ATAG 2.0 section).g.0 identifies three types of checking.. but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure. semi-automated checking: where the tests are partially carried out by the authoring tool. regardless of whether there has been any formal collaboration between the developers of the software components. and automated checking: where the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors. content (web content) Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the end user by means of a user agent. including code or markup that defines the content's structure. presentation. markup elements).g. markup editor. base tool and plug-in) or separately (e. image editor. the term is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool.

a frame-by-frame video editor renders the graphical. applying a template.g.). A "watercolor stroke" graphic object might have multiple "continuous" properties (e. but the template requires input from the author to be complete.g. etc. In ATAG 2. or executed.. but not others (e. In some cases... but "discrete" properties for setting the color and thickness of the line.g. played or executed by user agents. etc.g. etc. color. a freehand line graphic object might have a "continuous" path property that encodes thousands of individual x-y location values. stylesheet information.. automatically correcting markup errors.g. a single value for size. a photo album). of a video). the location. an author requests an interactive object be placed on their page (e. rendering an audio file as a graphical wavefront) and partial renderings. the attributes and contents of elements. of a pointing device) .. the authoring tool applies a template. speed.).g.g. play or execute the web content being edited. some types of web content (especially graphics) may include properties that can be said to encode continuous input because they incorporate frequent data samples (e. pressure) in order to graphically mimic the diffusion effects that occur when a real paint brush is moved in a similar manner.).) or automatically-generated when programming by the authoring tool developer is responsible for the web content (e. Content may be author-generated when authors are fully responsible for the web content (e. typing markup into a source content editing view.g. This may refer to information perceived by end users or to instructions for the user agents. path. unconventional renderings (e. pressure.content (web content)) properties The individual pieces of information that make up the web content (e.0 the term covers conventional renderings (e... speed. For example. WYSIWYG). in which some aspects of the content are rendered..g. content rendering User interface functionality that authoring tools present if they render. for example using the keyboard or mouse developer .. writing captions for audio.. etc. but not the timing aspects. While many web content properties have discrete values (e.g. angle. played. etc. font. For example. responsibility for content generation is shared. control settings Settings that relate to how authors control the authoring tool. content generation The act of specifying the web content to be rendered.

positioning. .g. zoom features. development of the authoring tool is complete before authors can use it to publish web content. sizes. This includes the programmers of any additional software components included by the Claimant in the conformance claim. document object The internal representation of data in the source content by a non-web based authoring tool or user agent. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help. colors. element A pair of markup tags and its content.g. In some cases. display settings Display settings include: display settings (audio): the characteristics of audio output of music. spacing. Examples include the magnitude of the haptic forces and the types of vibration. manuals. Examples include fonts. etc. voice speed. speech voices. documentation Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. However. some web-based authoring tools). installation instructions. sounds and speech. The document object may form part of a platform accessibility architecture that enables communication with assistive technologies. keyboard navigation. the developer may continue to modify the authoring tool even after content has been published. in other cases (e. text-to-speech). and voice emphasis.. Examples include volume. direct accessibility features Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet the requirements of authors with disabilities (e. tutorials. display settings (visual): the characteristics of the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. display settings (tactile): the characteristics of haptic output. such that the content experienced by the end user is modified.Any entities or individuals responsible for programming the authoring tool. Additional or specialized functionality may still be provided by external assistive technology. and contrast. or an "empty tag" (one that requires no closing tag or content).. Web-based authoring tools are considered to make use of the document object that is maintained by the user agent. sample work flows.

Examples of markup languages include HTML and SVG. A label is presented to all users whereas the name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. markup language A system of text annotations (e. not keyboard interfaces. informative For information purposes and not required for conformance. A keyboard interface can allows keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a conventional keyboard (e. Keyboard-operated mouse emulators. a touchscreen PDA can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected)..end user A person who interacts with web content once it has been authored. a control or group of controls. presentation or semantics of content.. This includes people using assistive technologies. The markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content. written or signed (through visual or tactile means) to communicate with humans.g. keyboard interface An interface used by software to obtain keystroke input. name . but not from. do not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because these emulators use pointing device interfaces. such as MouseKeys.g. keyboard trap A user interface situation in which the keyboard may be used to move focus to. In many (but not all) cases the name and the label are the same. human language Language that is spoken. elements in HTML) and processing rules that may be used to specify the structure. label Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to users to identify a component.

non-text content Any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be recognized or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object. MSAA and UI Automation for Windows applications. plug-in A program that runs as part of the authoring tool (e. Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome applications.. AXAPI for Mac OSX applications. and images representing text. normative Required for conformance.. Windows.g. a third-party checking and repair tool) and that is not part of web content being edited. etc.g. Authors generally choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.Text by which software can identify a component to the user. In the case of nonweb-based user interfaces this will be operating systems (e. Java Access for Java applications. whereas a label is presented to all users. In the case of web-based authoring user interfaces. platform The software environment within which the authoring tool operates.). emoticons. The name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. the label and the name are the same. Mac OS. virtual machines (e. In many (but not all) cases.g. platform accessibility architecture A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e. this will be user agents. programmatically determined (programmatically determinable) . On some platforms.g. presentation Rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by authors or end users. etc. Linux). JVM). One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document. option When an author is presented with choices.. Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters)..

publishing The point at which the authors or authoring tool make web content available to end users (e. tool-recognized alternative content). .. single controls. including: the number of navigation steps required. if item B is emphasized. names... such as labels.g. uploading a web page. If success criteria apply to recognized types of content (e. and even the modality of use (e.. text messages) in a user interface that they are operating. recognized (by the authoring tool) When an authoring tool is able to process encoded information.0 so that the user agent can pass on the information. if this relationship was appropriately encoded (e. by a labeledby property). spacing. Well designed prompting will urge.. prompt Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors.g. For non-web-based user interfaces. the reading order position.0. For example. groups of controls.. relationships Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content. size. For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2. visual properties (e. prominence A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (e. a menu for menu items. color). a dialog box for text boxes). suggest. roles or relationships.g. item A is considered to be at least as prominent as item B if: both items occur in the same item container (e. an authoring tool would only be able to recognize a particular text string as a text label for non-text content.When information is encoded in a way that allows different software. to extract and present the information in different modalities. Prominence is affected by numerous factors. the conformance claim must list the recognized types. committing a change in a wiki). and item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows item B. For web-based user interfaces .. and encourage authors.g. then so is item A. mouse vs. keyboard use). with certainty.g. this means following WCAG 2. in an alt attribute. a list for list items. this means making use of a platform accessibility architecture. including assistive technologies.g.g.

role Text or a number by which software can identify the function of a component within web content (e.g. based on increasing levels of automation: manual: where the repairs are carried out by authors. played or executed by user agents. Irreversible actions are actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with. ATAG 2. technology (web content) A mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered. content management templates. PDF. presentation themes). CSS.0 identifies three types of repairing. document templates. PNG. Flash. can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was in before the action. but where authors' input or judgment is still required to complete the repair. Web content technologies may include markup languages. command button. Often templates will pre-specify at least some authoring decisions. . a string that indicates whether an image functions as a hyperlink. but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure. and automated: where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors. or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic web applications. reversible actions Authoring actions that.repairing (accessibility) The process by which web content accessibility problems that have been identified within web content are resolved. semi-automated: where the repairs are partially carried out by the authoring tool. Some common examples of web content technologies include HTML. by their nature..g. SVG.. template A content pattern that is filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users (e. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool. or check box). data formats. and JavaScript.

previews are not editable and present content as it would appear in a user agent. user interface component A part of the user interface or content display (including content renderings) that is perceived by authors as a single control for a distinct function. and as pre-built content in which authors set only high-level options that the authoring tool then interprets to generate the resulting content (e. a calendar module in a content management system). user agent Any software that retrieves. view A user interface function that authors use to interact with the web content being edited.g.g. as content rendering. plain text editors). ATAG 2. Examples include web browsers.template selection mechanism A function beyond standard file selection that allows authors to select templates to use as the basis for new content or to apply to existing content. or both. Video can be made up of animated or photographic images. web content transformation .. tutorial A type of documentation that provides step-by-step instructions for performing multi-part tasks. browser plug-ins. renders and facilitates end user interaction with web content. video The technology of moving pictures or images.0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing and the way in which they present content: editing views are editable. and media players. There are three approaches to presenting the content in a view: as source content in which the unrendered content is presented (e..

A process that takes as input, content in one web content technology or non-web content technology (e.g., a word processing format) and produces as output, web content that has been restructured (linearizing tables, splitting a document into pages), re-coded (e.g., HTML to XHTML, a word processing format to HTML) or optimized (e.g., removing whitespace, re-compressing images). workflow A customary sequence of steps or tasks authors follow to produce a content deliverable. If an authoring tool is composed of a collection of software components, then its workflows may include use of one or more of the components. WYSIWYG This is an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". A WYSIWYG view displays (to authors) the content being edited in a way that is very similar to how it will appear to end users. Appendix B: How to refer to ATAG 2.0 from other documents This section is informative. There are two recommended ways to refer to the "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (and to W3C documents in general): References to a specific version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0." For example, use the "this version" URI to refer to the current document: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/ References to the latest version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0." Use the "latest version" URI to refer to the most recently published document in the series: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/. In almost all cases, references (either by name or by link) should be to a specific version of the document. W3C will make every effort to make this document indefinitely available at its original address in its original form. The top of this document includes the relevant catalog metadata for specific references (including title, publication date, "this version" URI, editors' names, and copyright information). An XHTML 1.0 paragraph including a reference to this specific document might be written: <p>

<cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-ATAG20-20100708/"> "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0,"</a></cite> J. Richards, J. Spellman, J. Treviranus, eds., W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/. The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/">latest version</a> of this document is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.</p> For very general references to this document (where stability of content and anchors is not required), it may be appropriate to refer to the latest version of this document. Other sections of this document explain how to build a conformance claim. Appendix C: References This section is informative. For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR/. Some documents listed below may have been superseded since the publication of this document. [ATAG10] "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/. [UAAG] "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0," I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, E. Hansen, eds.17 December 2002. This W3C Recommendation is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/. [WCAG20] "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 ", B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, and G. Vanderheiden. Appendix D: Acknowledgments Appendix Editors: Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto) Jeanne Spellman (W3C)

Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication: Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology) Ann McMeekin (Invited Expert) Sueann Nichols (IBM) Greg Pisocky (Adobe) Jan Richards (Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto) Andrew Ronksley (Royal National Institute for the Blind) Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) Jeanne Spellman (W3C) Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto) Other previously active AUWG participants and other contributors to ATAG 2.0: Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler, Geoff Deering, Barry A. Feigenbaum, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, William Loughborough, Karen Mardahl, Charles McCathieNevile, Matt May, Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Graham Oliver, Wendy Porch, Bob Regan, Chris Ridpath, Gregory Rosmaita, Dana Simberkoff, Reed Shaffner, Michael Squillace, Heather Swayne, Gregg Vanderheiden, Carlos Velasco, and Jason White. This document would not have been possible without the work of those who contributed to ATAG 1.0. This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) under contract number ED05CO0039. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Appendix E: Checklist Appendix F: Comparison of ATAG 1.0 guidelines to ATAG 2.0 [Contents]

For each guideline. or is not applicable. where an authoring tool user interface accessibility problem is caused directly by a web content accessibility problem in the content being edited (e. indicate whether the success criteria has been satisfied. Applicability Notes: For PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible: Scope of authoring tool user interface: The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the authoring tool user interface that are under the control of the authoring tool developer. then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the authoring tool user interface. has not been satisfied. ensuring that a text alternative in the content can be programmatically determined).. It lists all of the guidelines and success criteria from ATAG 2. documentation. If a conformance claim is made.g.g. etc. keyboard navigation. including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e. search functions. IWA/HWG This Checklist serves as an appendix to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. User agent features: Web-based authoring tools may rely on user agent features (e.0) Editors: Jan Richards. Features for meeting Part A must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface. ATRC. etc. University of Toronto Roberto Scano.. display preferences.). Checklist (for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.) to satisfy success criteria. and features that are independent of the content being edited. The only . the claim cites the user agent. if an image in the content lacks a label).[Guidelines] Appendix E. This list may be used to review an authoring tool for accessibility. Reflected web content accessibility problems: The authoring tool is responsible for ensuring that editing views display the web content being edited in a way that is accessible to authors with disabilities (e.0 in a checkable list. However. find functions..0..g. For many readers.g. undo features. etc. user preferences. This includes views of the web content being edited. documentation. the Checklist provides a quick reference and overview to the information in ATAG 2. such as menus. status bars. button bars.

others require human testers for part or all of the test. including those with disabilities. Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2. each with different views and content editing permissions (e. if the site-wide templates of a content management system are updated. these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automaticallygenerated content. Features for meeting Part B must be accessible: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface. etc. In these cases. content authors. . For example. and quality assurers). All ATAG 2. an authoring tool could make use of a thirdparty software accessibility checking and repair tool). as long as they meet Guideline A.g.0 success criteria are written to be testable. benefit when preview features accurately reflect the actual functionality of user agents. While some can be tested by software.). Guidelines and Success Criteria Under each guideline there are success criteria that describe specifically what must be achieved in order to conform. documentation. Part B continues to apply after the end of the authoring session.. several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B.0 definition of authoring tool. For example. a content management system may separate the roles of designers.g. For PART B: Support the production of accessible content : Author availability: Any Part B success criteria that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions. Applicability after the end of an authoring session: For author-generated content. Each success criterion is written as a statement that will be either true or false when a specific authoring tool is tested against it..exemption is for preview features. tutorials. not to the view provided to any particular author role. including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part B (e. for automatically-generated content. In contrast. the requirements of Part B only apply during authoring sessions. checking tools. the authoring tool is not required to provide checking for web content accessibility problems in that feed after the end of the authoring session. repair tools. if the author includes a third-party feed in their web content. (e.7. They are similar to the "checkpoints" in ATAG 1. Multiple author roles: Some authoring tool include multiple author roles.0. the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole.g.3.. Previews are treated differently than editing views because all authors.

1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible.2. A.3. WYSIWYG view) renders any of the following presentation properties for text.g.2.2.1.1 Purpose of Added Presentation: If an editing view modifies the presentation of web content to provide additional information to authors.2. then those properties can be programmatically determined: (a) Text Font.1. A.2. Level A Success Criteria Guideline Success Criteria Yes No N/A A. A.3. italic. A. and (c) Text Color.1 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level A): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2. A. bold). see the ATAG 2.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that non-web-based functionality is accessible.2. and (b) Text Style (e.2. the claim cites the accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that were followed.1.1.g. A.3: Ensure the independence of the authors' display preferences.1.1.For more information.2.1.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features. A.2.. A.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Editing view presentation can be programmatically determined.1 Independence of Display: Authors can set their own display settings for editing views (including WYSIWYG views) without affecting the web content to be published.2 Access to Text Presentation (Minimum): If an editing view (e.1 Recognized Alternative Content: If recognized alternative content is available for editing view content renderings.0 Conformance section. A. Note: If a conformance claim is made. then that additional information can be programmatically determined.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum): All functionality of the authoring . A.3.2. and (d) Text Size. A.1 Non-Web-Based Accessible: Non-webbased authoring tool user interfaces follow accessibility standards and/or platform conventions that support accessibility.0 Level A.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Make alternative content available to the author. A. then the alternative content is provided to authors..

or (e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity. or (d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e. not the usual input technique.. WYSIWYG view).tool is operable through a keyboard interface.3.3.1. Note 1: This exception relates to the nature of web content.1 Data Saved (Minimum): If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits. A.2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool.g. TAB key). then the authoring tool saves all submitted content edits made by authors. and (b) In Editing Views that Render Web Content: If an editing view renders web content (e. or (f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours. then a documented keyboard command is provided that will always restore keyboard focus to a known location (e.2 No Content Keyboard Traps: Keyboard traps are prevented as follows: (a) In the Authoring Tool User Interface: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using the keyboard.. then at least one of the following is true: (a) Turn Off: Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it. then focus can be moved away from that component using standard keyboard navigation commands (e. and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times. or (b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting. A. .g. a collaborative authoring system). the menus). except where editing web content properties that encode continuous input. and no alternative to the time limit is possible. Note 2: This should not be interpreted as discouraging mouse input or other input methods in addition to the keyboard interface. A... For example.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide authors with enough time.3. while setting the endpoints of a straight line is not. or (c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e. "press the space bar").g.g..3.2. setting the path of a freehand curve is exempt.g. A.2.

1.2 Preview: If a preview is provided... "save".g.3.4 [For the authoring tool user interface] Enhance navigation and editing via content structure. keyboard shortcuts. animations) in editing views can be turned off.1 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level A): Authors can .1 Document Accessibility Features: All features that are specifically required to meet Part A of this document (e.1. A.1.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface including all accessibility features.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Help users avoid and correct mistakes.3 Static Pointer Targets: User interface components that accept pointer input are either stationary or authors can pause the movement.1. etc.3.7. A. A.4.7 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that previews are as accessible as existing user agents. A. A.1. a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.1 Return Mechanism: If a preview is provided.2 Undo Setting Changes: Actions that modify authoring tool settings are either reversible or include a warning to authors that the action is irreversible.3.4. text search. A. A. Note 2: It is acceptable for certain committing actions (e. A.g.g.1 Static View Option: Rendering of time-based content (e.3.7.2.4. B. or (b) UAAG (Level A): The preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A [UAAG].3.) are documented.4.2 Navigate By Structure: Editing views for structured web content include navigation mechanism(s) that can make use of the structure.4.3.1 Undo Content Changes: Authoring actions are either reversible by an "undo" function or include a warning to the authors that the action is irreversible.2. A. A.4.3.1 Support web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible.1 Edit by Structure: Editing views for structured web content include editing mechanism(s) that can make use of the structure. typed words. B. Note 1: It is acceptable to collect a series of text entry actions (e..3.4.g. then authors can return from the preview using only keyboard commands.3. A. A.3 [For the authoring tool user interface] Help authors avoid flashing that could cause seizures.A. A. then at least one of the following is true: (a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent.3. "publish") to make all previous authoring actions irreversible.

B.3 Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible.2 End Product Cannot Preserve Accessibility Information: If the web content technology of the output of a web content transformation cannot preserve recognized accessibility information (WCAG 2. write their own automated scripts.0 Level A.0 Level A) (e.1.2.2.1 Preserve Accessibility Information (Minimum): Any accessibility information (WCAG 2.0 Level A prior to publishing. B. as a "comment".1 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically generates content.1. as a backup copy of the input).).use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2. B. attribute values. B.2. It does not apply when actions of authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.. Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer. and (b) List: From the warning.g. if allowed by the web content technology of the output.1.2.1. etc.. provide faulty accessibility information. ignore prompts for accessibility information. then both of the following are true: (a) Warning: Authors are warned that the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content for that technology. B.g..2.1.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information. saving a structured graphic to a raster image format).g. authors might set less strict preferences.1 Guide authors to create accessible content..1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides the option of producing a web content technology for publishing for which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production of accessible content.2 Set Accessible Properties: Mechanisms that set the properties of web content (e. B. authors can access a list of technologies for which the authoring tool does provide support for the production of accessible content.3. B. .0 Level A) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.g. then that web content conforms to WCAG 2.) also include the ability to set the accessibilityrelated properties.1. B. then at least one of the following are true: (a) Option to Save: Authors have the option to save the accessibility information in another way (e.1. or (b) Warning: Authors are warned that this will result in web content accessibility problems in the output. etc.

3 Other Technologies: If the authoring tool can insert web content that it cannot subsequently edit.2. B. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. see Implementing ATAG 2. B. which authors must carry out by themselves. a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions).0 . displaying line numbers.. highlighting the affected content.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation.g. .Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation. repair assistance is provided. Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.g. an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems. In manual checking.1 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2.1 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level A): For each WCAG 2. manual checking and semi-automated checking)..4 Help Authors Locate: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i. However.2. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided (e. For more information on repair.2. which authors must carry out by themselves.3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.2. However. B.2 Availability: Checking is available prior to publishing in a manner appropriate to the workflow of the authoring tool. In manual repair.3. B. B.2. For more information on checking..0 Level A web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Guideline B.1. see Implementing ATAG 2.2. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. the relevant content is identified (e.e. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems.2.B.2).. then the authors can associate accessibility information with that web content.2.2. instructions are provided to help the authors decide whether it is correctly identified.3 Help Authors Decide: For any checks that require author judgment to determine whether a potential web content accessibility problem is correctly identified (i.2.2.0 Level A Success Criterion can be violated. manual checking and semi-automated checking). etc.2.0 .2. B.e.) B.

1 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level A): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content.4.2..3.0 Level A are at least as prominent as options that will not.0 Level A when used. B. then the selections conform to WCAG 2. the authoring tool does not attempt to repair alternative content for non-text content using text value that is equally available to user agents (e.2.5. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2. B. or reject the suggested alternative content prior to insertion. B.2 Automated suggestions: During the authoring session.4.2.1 Active by Default: All accessible content support features are turned on by default.4 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.2.2 Reactivate Option: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature. suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).3.4. B. B..3. B. B.2.2.2. and (b) Relevant Sources: The suggested alternative content is only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g.1 Editable: Authors are able to modify alternative content for non-text content.g.2 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available. the authoring tool can automatically suggest alternative content for non-text content only under the following conditions: (a) Author Control: Authors have the opportunity to accept.3.3 Let User Agents Repair: After the end of an authoring session. then there are accessible template options for a range of template uses.5. B.g.. B. B. the filename is not used). Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. then they can always turn the feature back on.1.1 Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence.2 Provide Accessible Templates: If the authoring tool provides templates.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.3.2.B.2. modify. . styling text). The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly. B.1 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level A): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e. This includes types of alternative content that may not typically be displayed on screen by user agents.

4.0 Level AA. A. (b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards.3. text alternatives for non-text content. A.3.3.1 Save Settings: The authoring tool display settings and control settings are saved between sessions.. A.1.3.3.3. then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results. Level AA Success CriteriaGuideline Success Criteria Yes No N/A A. B.1 Instructions: Instructions for using the accessible content support features appear in the documentation.1. markup. including: text content.3 Keyboard Shortcuts: Keyboard shortcuts are provided.1. markup elements and attributes. the author's display settings must still be independent of the web content being edited.1 Text Search: Authors can perform text searches of web content as follows: (a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable.g. A. B.B.1.3.3.4 Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible.3. A. B.2 Respect Platform Settings: The authoring tool respects platform display settings and control settings.6. metadata.1 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level A): A range of examples in the documentation (e.1. A.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible.5 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide text search of the content. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2.5. A. Note: As per Success Criterion A.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings.3.3.3.3 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented.2 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level AA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2.6. . A.2. and (c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.3. and Note: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search.0 Level A accessible authoring practices.

A.g.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Help users avoid and correct mistakes. provide faulty accessibility information. B.5 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2.2 Document All Features: All features of the authoring tool are documented.4 Notification Prior to Deletion: If the authoring tool automatically deletes any author-generated content for any reason. then at least one of the following is true: (a) Preserve Accessibility Information: The authoring tool only automatically deletes web content that it can detect is not accessibility information.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems.2.2 Ensure that the authoring tool preserves accessibility information.1. B.2 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content. or (c) No Deletion Option: Authors have the option to prevent automatic deletion by the authoring tool. ignore prompts for accessibility information. B. ..0 Level AA Success Criterion can be violated.1.2. authors might set less strict preferences. write their own automated scripts. etc.3.4.3 Preserve Accessibility Information (Enhanced): Any accessibility information (up to WCAG 2.2 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level AA): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2. B.2.0 Level AA prior to publishing.3 Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible.1. B. It does not apply when actions of authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e.2. then that web contentconforms to WCAG 2.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Document the user interface including all accessibility features.). or (b) Notification Option: Authors have the option to receive notification before deletion. A.4.4.1. B.1. A.A. B. Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided.4.1. B.1.3 Undo is Reversible: Authors can immediately reverse the most recent "undo" action(s).1.0 Level AAA) recognized in the input to any web content transformation is preserved as accessibility information in the output.1.1 Support web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible. B.0 Level AA.2.2.

0 . etc.g.5). then the selections conform to WCAG 2.2.4 Save for Reuse: Authors have the option of having any recognized plain text alternative content that they enter (e.3 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content.g. B. B.. Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. For more information on repair.Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation. repair assistance is provided. B. the status might be a listing of problems detected or a WCAG 2.2.2..3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. B.2.Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation. For more information on checking. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems.2. see Implementing ATAG 2. which authors must carry out by themselves.2. high-level conformance claims.2. For example.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.7 Metadata Production: Authors have the option of associating accessibility checking results with the web content as metadata.2.2. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured . Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.5.0 Level AA when used. In manual checking.4 Assist authors with managing alternative content for non-text content.4.0 Level AA web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Success Criterion B.2 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level AA): For each WCAG 2.0 . However. see Implementing ATAG 2.Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. long descriptions) stored for future reuse. Note: The format of the accessibility status is not specified. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems.3. B.0 conformance level. However. short text labels.) B.2.6 Status Report: Authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. B. low-level check results.2.2. In manual repair. etc. B. (Level AA) Note: The metadata format that is implemented will dictate the nature of the associated results (e. which authors must carry out by themselves.

widget repository. and (b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other preauthored content options.5.g.2.5.1.g.5 New Templates: If authors can use the authoring tool to create new templates for use by a template selection mechanism.g. spelling and grammar errors).. B. B.2 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are available. markup. B.3.g. design themes).2 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level AA): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.. syntax errors. B. they have the option to record the accessibility status of the new templates. clip art gallery. B. then both of the following are true: (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the preauthored content (if known).4 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a template selection mechanism.3.. B. and (b) Prominence: Any accessible template options are at least as prominent as other template options.3.4.2 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level AA): A range of examples in the documentation (e.by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.3.2. then the authoring tool informs them that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems. B.3.2.3.4 Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible. invalid markup. B.6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e. styling text). screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2..0 Level AA are at least as prominent as options that will not. B.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are at least as prominent as comparable features related to other types of web content problems (e. then both of the following are true: (a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of templates (if known).0 Level AA accessible authoring practices. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2. .1 Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence.2.3.5.2. B.3 Deactivation Warning: If authors turn off an accessible content support feature.

provide faulty accessibility information. Note: This success criterion only applies to the automated behavior specified by the authoring tool developer.1.3.4 Keyboard Access (Enhanced): All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface.1. authors might set less strict preferences.1. A. A.3 Ensure that automatically generated content is accessible. B.1. etc.3.3.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide authors with enough time. A.3.1 Support web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible. A.4 Options Assistance: The authoring tool includes a mechanism to help authors configure any options related to Part A of this document.1.1.3. A.5 Customize Keyboard Access: Keyboard access to the authoring tool can be customized. A. A. ignore prompts for accessibility information..3.2. write their own automated scripts.2.3 Access to Text Presentation (Enhanced): If an editing view (e.3 Web-Based Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): Web-based authoring tool user interfaces conform to WCAG 2..g.1.1.6. WYSIWYG view) renders any presentation properties for text.3 Multiple Sets: Authors can save and reload multiple sets of any authoring tool display settings and control settings.3. B.2 [For the authoring tool user interface] Editing view presentation can be programmatically determined.1.3.1. A. B.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended): The authoring tool can be set to save all content edits made by authors.2.0 Level AAA. A.6 [For the authoring tool user interface] Manage preference settings. then that web contentconforms to WCAG 2. It does not apply when actions of authors prevent generation of accessible web content (e. B. A.3 Accessible Content Production (WCAG Level AAA): Authors can use the authoring tool to produce web content that conforms to WCAG 2. .3.2.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Ensure that web-based functionality is accessible.1 [For the authoring tool user interface] Provide keyboard access to authoring features. A.3.). then those properties can be programmatically determined.1.0 Level AAA.g. A.Level AAA Success CriteriaGuideline Success Criteria Yes No N/A A.6.3 Accessible Auto-Generated Content (Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically generates content.6 Present Keyboard Commands: Authoring tool user interface controls can be presented with their associated keyboard commands.0 Level AAA prior to publishing.

8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content.2.2. B. B.g. B.2.Appendix C: Levels of Repair Automation.3. B.3 Accessible Options Prominent (WCAG Level AAA): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e. Note: Templates may not pass accessibility checks due to their inherent incompleteness. then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. which authors must carry out by themselves.2.3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for repairing problems. The accessibility status of a template should instead be measured by the accessibility of completed web content (in the final web content technology) created when the template is used properly.0 .5. manual checking is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion.2.2 Assist authors in checking for accessibility problems. In manual repair.8 Check Accessibility (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that any WCAG 2..Appendix B: Levels of Checking Automation. the authoring tool provides authors with instructions for detecting problems.0 Level AAA Success Criterion can be violated. then the selections conform to WCAG 2. B.0 . styling .2. B. then accessibility checking for those success criteria is provided. Note: Automated and semi-automated checking is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems.2.2.3. Note: Automated and semi-automated repair is possible (and encouraged) for many types of web content accessibility problems. manual repair is the minimum requirement to meet this success criterion..0 Level AAA web content accessibility problem that is identifiable during checking (as required by Success Criterion B.2. repair assistance is provided.0 Level AAA when used.2.5.10). which authors must carry out by themselves.7 Templates in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of templates.3.3 Repair Accessibility (WCAG Level AAA): For each WCAG 2.5.5 Assist authors with accessible templates and other pre-authored content.B. For more information on repair.1 Ensure that accessible authoring actions are given prominence. B. see Implementing ATAG 2.9 Templates Accessible (WCAG Level AAA): If the authoring tool automatically selects templates or pre-authored content. For more information on checking. However. see Implementing ATAG 2. In manual checking.2.1. B. then each of the templates has a recorded accessibility status. However. B.

3.g. screen shots of WYSIWYG editing views) demonstrate WCAG 2.4.3.4 Ensure that any authoring practices demonstrated in documentation are accessible. B. markup. B.2 Accessible Authoring Tutorial: A tutorial on an accessible authoring process that is specific to the authoring tool is provided.3 Ensure that features of the authoring tool supporting the production of accessible content are documented. [Guidelines] .0 Level AAA are at least as prominent as options that will not.3 Model Accessible Practice (WCAG Level AAA): A range of examples in the documentation (e.. B.3. B. then options that will result in web content conforming to WCAG 2.3.text).3.0 Level AAA accessible authoring practices.