Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 日本語訳

概要

この文書のステータス

この節では、この文書の発行された時点でのステータスを説明する。この文書が、他の文書によって置き換えられている場合もある。現行の W3C の発行文書及びこのテクニカルレポートの改訂版は、http://www.w3.org/TR/にあるW3C technical reports indexで参照可能である。

Web Accessibility Initiative

This document has been produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals of the AUWG are discussed in the Working Group charter.

特許

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. 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.

This document is governed by the 1 September 2015 W3C Process Document.

前書き

ATAG 2.0 ガイダンスのレイヤー

ATAG 2.0を使用する可能性のある個人および組織は幅広く、オーサリングツールの開発者、オーサリングツール利用者（著者）、オーサリングツールの購入者、およびポリシー制作者が含まれる。これらの人たちの様々なニーズを満たすため、いくつかのレイヤーのガイダンスが用意されている:

• パート: ATAG 2.0は2つのパートに分かれており、それぞれがオーサリングツールに関する重要なアクセシビリティの側面を反映している。パートAは障害のある著者に対するオーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに関するもの。パートBは障害を持つエンドユーザーがよりアクセスしやすいウェブコンテンツを、（障害者に限らない）著者が作成するためのオーサリングツールによる支援に関するもの。どちらのパートもそのパート内のすべての達成基準に適用される規範的な「Conformance Applicability Notes」が含まれる: パートA適合適合性ノートおよびパートB適合適合性ノート。
• 原則: 各パートの下にはガイドラインを構成するいくつかの上層の原則がある
• ガイドライン: 原則の下にあるのがガイドラインである。 ガイドラインは、さまざまな障害を持つウェブコンテンツの著者とエンドユーザーの両方がオーサリングツールにアクセスしやすくするために、オーサリングツール開発者が取り組むべき基本的な目標を提供する。ガイドラインはテスト可能ではないが、オーサリングツール開発者が成功基準を理解するための枠組みと全体的な目的を提供する。各ガイドラインにはなぜそのガイドラインが含まれているかの簡単な根拠が含まれている。
• 達成基準: 各ガイドラインには、検証可能な達成基準が設けられており、設計仕様、購入、基準策定、契約上の合意などにあたりその要件と適合試験が必要となる際にATAG 2.0を使用することが可能である。異なるグループや異なる状況のニーズを満たすために、完全適合と部分適合の複数のレベルが定義されている（適合レベルを参照）
• Implementing ATAG 2.0 document: Implementing ATAG 2.0 は、達成基準の目的の説明や具体例、関連リソースへのリンクを含んだ各達成基準に対する追加の非規範的な情報を提供する

追加のATAG技術資料および教育資料へのリンクについてはAuthoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) Overviewを参照。

適合レベル

In order to ensure that the process of using ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 together in the development of authoring tools is as simple as possible, ATAG 2.0 shares WCAG 2.0's three level conformance model: Level A (lowest), AA (middle), AAA (highest). For more information, see Understanding Levels of Conformance.

アクセシビリティ機能の統合

When implementing ATAG 2.0, authoring tool developers should carefully integrate features that support more accessible authoring into the same "look-and-feel" as other features of the authoring tool. Close integration has the potential to:

• produce a more seamless product;
• leverage the existing knowledge and skills of authors;
• make authors more receptive to new accessibility-related authoring requirements; and
• reduce the likelihood of author confusion.

ガイドライン

ガイドライン B.2.3: 著者が非テキストコンテンツの代替コンテンツを管理するのを支援する。 [Implementing B.2.3]

根拠: 不適切に生成された代替コンテンツは、ウェブコンテンツのアクセシビリティ問題(WCAG)を生成し、アクセシビリティチェックを妨げる可能性がある。
注: このガイドラインは、非テキストコンテンツが著者によって指定された場合（例えば画像の挿入など）にのみ適用される。非テキストコンテンツがオーサリングツールによって自動的に追加される場合はガイドラインB.1.1を参照。

ガイドライン B.2.4: アクセシブルなテンプレートで著者を支援する。 [Implementing B.2.4]

根拠: アクセシブルなテンプレート(WCAG)を提供すると、編集時にウェブコンテンツのアクセシビリティ(WCAG)をすぐに改善することや著者の負担の軽減、アクセシブルなウェブコンテンツ(WCAG)の重要性を証明するなど、いくつかの利点がある。

ガイドライン B.2.5: 事前に作成されたアクセシブルなコンテンツで著者を支援する。 [Implementing B.2.5]

Rationale: Providing accessible pre-authored content (WCAG) (e.g. clip art, synchronized media, widgets) can have several benefits, including: immediately improving the accessibility of web content (WCAG) being edited, reducing the effort required of authors, and demonstrating the importance of accessibility.

原則 B.3: 著者は既存コンテンツのアクセシビリティの改善をする際にサポートされる

ガイドライン B.3.1: アクセシビリティの問題のためのチェック時に著者を支援する。[Implementing B.3.1]

根拠: アクセシビリティのチェックがオーサリングツールの統合された機能である場合、オーサリングプロセス中にウェブコンテンツのアクセシビリティ問題(WCAG)を著者に気付かせるのに役立ち、すぐに対処することができる。

ガイドライン B.3.2: アクセシビリティの問題を修正する際に著者を支援する。 [Implementing B.2.3]

根拠: 修正はオーサリングツールプロセスの必要不可欠であるため、チェックの有用性が大幅に向上し、ウェブコンテンツのアクセシビリティの問題(WCAG)が適切に対処される可能性がある。

原則 B.4: オーサリングツールはアクセシビリティ機能を促進し、統合する

ガイドライン B.4.1: アクセシブルなコンテンツの制作をサポートする機能が利用可能であることを確保する。 [Implementing B.4.1]

根拠: アクセシブルなコンテンツを支援する機能は、機能をオンにしてオーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースで合理的な効果が目立つことで、使用される可能性が高くなる。

ガイドライン B.4.2: アクセシブルなコンテンツの制作を促進するドキュメントを確保する。 [Implementing B.4.2]

根拠: 一部の著者は、アクセシブルなコンテンツの制作機能（例えば、代替テキストに対する要求への対応方法、アクセシビリティチェックツールの使用方法など）を使う上でサポートが必要である。アクセシブルなオーサリングを習慣的な慣例として実演するか、あるいは少なくともアクセシブルではない慣例を実演しないことは、著者に対してアクセシビリティの受け入れを促進するのに役立つ。

適合

Conformance means that the authoring tool satisfies the applicable success criteria defined in the guidelines section. This conformance section describes conformance and lists the conformance requirements.

適合要件

達成基準を満たす

The first step in determining ATAG 2.0 conformance is to assess whether the Success Criteria have been satisfied. The potential answers are:

• Not Applicable: The ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool is inclusive and, as such, it covers software with a wide range of capabilities and contexts of operation. In order to take into account authoring tools with limited feature sets (e.g. a photo editor, a CSS editor, a status update field in a social networking application), many of the ATAG 2.0 success criteria are conditional, applying only to authoring tools with the given features(s). If a conformance claim is made, an explanation of why the success criterion is not applicable is required.
• Yes: In the case of some success criteria, this will include a Level (A, AA, or AAA) with reference to WCAG 2.0. If a conformance claim is made, an explanation is optional, yet strongly recommended.
• No: If a conformance claim is made, an explanation is optional, yet strongly recommended.

ウェブコンテンツアクセシビリティガイドライン（WCAG）2.0との関係

At the time of publishing, WCAG 2.0 [WCAG20] is the current W3C Recommendation regarding web content accessibility. For this reason, ATAG 2.0 refers to WCAG 2.0 when setting requirements for (1) the accessibility of web-based authoring tool user interfaces (in Part A) and (2) how authors should be enabled, supported, and guided toward producing web content that is more accessible to end users with disabilities (in Part B).

In particular, ATAG 2.0 refers to WCAG 2.0 within its definition of the term "accessible content" (and related terms, such as "accessible template"). The definition of "accessible content" is content that would conform to WCAG 2.0, at either Level A, AA, or AAA, under the assumption that any web content technologies that are relied upon to satisfy the WCAG 2.0 success criteria are accessibility supported. The phrase "at either Level A, AA, or AAA" takes into account that the definition of "accessible content" can differ depending on the context of use (e.g. in a Level A success criterion of ATAG 2.0 versus in a Level AAA success criterion). The definition also includes two notes:

• The first is "If accessibility support for the relied upon technologies is lacking, then the content will not conform to WCAG 2.0 and one or more groups of end-users with disabilities will likely experience difficulty accessing the content."
• The second is "Conformance to WCAG 2.0, even at the highest level (i.e. Level AAA), still may not make content 'accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability'." In order to highlight success criteria or defined terms in ATAG 2.0 that depend on WCAG 2.0, they are marked with the parenthetical: "(WCAG)".

「技術のアクセシビリティサポーテッドな使用方法」についての注記:

Part of conformance to WCAG 2.0 is the requirement that "only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the WCAG 2.0 success criteria. 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." In broad terms, WCAG 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 accessibility-supported user agents that are available to end users.

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.g. private intranets versus public websites, monolingual sites versus multilingual sites). Therefore:

ATAG 2.0 does not include the accessibility-supported requirement. As a result, ATAG 2.0 success criteria do not refer to WCAG 2.0 "conformance", and instead refer to "meeting WCAG 2.0 success criteria".

Once an authoring tool has been installed and put into use, it would be possible to assess the WCAG 2.0 conformance of the web content that the authoring tool produces, including whether the WCAG 2.0 accessibility-supported requirement is met. However, this WCAG 2.0 conformance assessment would be completely independent of the authoring tool's conformance with ATAG 2.0.

適合オプションとレベル

There are two types of conformance, each with three levels:

ATAG 2.0 適合（レベルA、AA、またはAAA）

This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool can be used to produce accessible web content (WCAG) without additional tools or components. The level of conformance is determined as follows:

• Level A: The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A success criteria.
• Level AA: The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable Level A and Level AA success criteria.
• Level AAA: The authoring tool satisfies all of the applicable success criteria.

Note 1: The Part A Conformance Applicability Notes and Part B Conformance Applicability Notes must be applied.
Note 2: If the minimum conformance level (Level A) has not been achieved (i.e. at least one applicable Level A success criterion has not been met), it is still beneficial to publish a statement specifying which success criteria were met.

ATAG 2.0 部分適合 - プロセスコンポーネント（レベルA、AA、またはAAA）

This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool would require additional tools or components in order to conform as a complete authoring system. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a markup editor that only lacks accessibility checking functionality).

The level of conformance (A, AA, or AAA) is determined as above except that, for any "no" answers, the tool must not prevent the success criteria from being met by another authoring process component as part of a complete authoring system.

Note 1: Authoring tools would not be able to meet partial conformance if they prevent additional authoring process components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g. for security reasons).
Note 2: The Part A Conformance Applicability Notes and Part B Conformance Applicability Notes must be applied.

ATAG 2.0 部分適合 - プラットフォームの制限（レベルA、AA、またはAAA）

This conformance option may be selected when an authoring tool is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform (e.g. lacking a platform accessibility service). The (optional) explanation of conformance claim results should explain what platform features are missing.

ウェブコンテンツ技術の制作:

Authoring tools conform to ATAG 2.0 with respect to the production of specific web content technologies (e.g. Level A Conformance with respect to the production of XHTML 1.0).

If an authoring tool is capable of producing multiple web content technologies, then the conformance may include only a subset of these technologies as long as the subset includes both any technologies that the developer sets for automatically-generated content or that the developer sets as the default for author-generated content. The subset may include "interim" formats that are not intended for publishing to end users, though this is not required.

ライブパブリッシングオーサリングツール:

ATAG 2.0 may be applied to authoring tools with workflows that involve live authoring of web content (e.g. some collaborative tools). Due to the challenges inherent in real-time publishing, conformance to Part B of ATAG 2.0 for these authoring tools may involve some combination of support before (e.g. support in preparing accessible slides), during (e.g. live captioning as WCAG 2.0 requires at Level AA) and after the live authoring session (e.g. the ability to add a transcript to the archive of a presentation that was initially published in real-time). For more information, see Implementing ATAG 2.0 - Appendix E: Authoring Tools for Live Web Content.

適合表明（任意）

Note: As with any software application, authoring tools can be collections of components. A conformance claim can only be made by a responsible entity. Any other attempted "claims" are, in fact, reviews.

適合表明の必須項目

1. Date of the claim.
2. ATAG 2.0 version and URI
3. Conformance level satisfied.
4. Authoring tool information: The name of the authoring tool and sufficient additional information to specify the version (e.g. vendor name, version number (or version range), required patches or updates, human language of the user interface or documentation).
   • Note: If the authoring tool is a collection of software applications (e.g. a markup editor, an image editor, and a validation tool), then information must be provided separately for each application, although the conformance claim will treat them as a whole.
5. Platform(s): The platform(s) upon which the authoring tool operates:
   • 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).
   • 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.g. desktop operating system, mobile operating system, cross-OS environment) and the name and version of the platform accessibility service(s) employed.
6. A list of the web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are included in the claim. If there are any web content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are not included in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately. If the authoring tool produces any web content technologies by default, then these must be included.
7. Results for each of the success criteria: Yes, No, Not Applicable

適合表明の任意の項目

In addition to 適合表明の必須項目 above, consider providing additional information to assist authors. Recommended additional information includes:

1. An explanation of the success criteria results (Yes, No). (strongly recommended)
2. Information about how the web content technologies produced can be used to create accessible web content (e.g. links to technology-specific WCAG 2.0 techniques).
3. Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success criteria to enhance accessibility.
4. A machine-readable metadata version of the conformance claim.
5. A description of the authoring tool that identifies the types of editing-views that it includes.

免責事項

Neither W3C, WAI, nor AUWG take any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance claim that has not been published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or AUWG.

付録A: 用語集

accessibility problems

ATAG 2.0 recognizes two types of accessibility problems:

• authoring tool user interface accessibility problems: Aspects of an authoring tool user interface that does not meet a success criterion in Part A of ATAG 2.0.
• web content accessibility problems (WCAG): Aspects of web content that does not meet a WCAG 2.0 success criterion (Level A, AA or AAA).

accessibility information (WCAG)

Information that web content must contain in order to meet a WCAG 2.0 success criterion (Level A, AA or AAA). Examples include: programmatically associated alternative content (e.g. text alternatives for images), role, and state information for widgets, relationships within complex tables).
Note: For the purposes of ATAG 2.0, only programmatically determinable accessibility information qualifies. For additional examples, see Appendix A of the Implementing ATAG 2.0 document.

accessible content support features

Any features of an authoring tool that directly support authors in increasing the accessibility of the web content being edited. These are features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B of ATAG 2.0.

alternative content

Web content that is used in place of other content that some people are not able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. WCAG 2.0 recognizes several general types of alternative content:

• text alternatives for non-text content: Text that is programmatically associated with non-text content or referred to from text that is programmatically associated with non-text content. For example, an image of a chart might have two text alternatives: a description in the paragraph after the chart and a short text alternative for the chart indicating in words that a description follows.
• alternatives for time-based media: Web content that serves the same function or purpose as one or more tracks in a time-based media presentation. This includes: captions, audio descriptions, extended audio descriptions, sign language interpretation as well as correctly sequenced text descriptions of time-based visual and auditory information that also is capable of achieving the outcomes of any interactivity in the time-based presentation.
• media alternative for text: Media that presents no more information than is already presented in text (directly or via text alternatives). A media alternative for text is provided for people who benefit from alternate representations of text. Media alternatives for text may be audio-only, video-only (including sign-language video), or audio-video.

Importantly, from the perspective of authoring tools, alternative content may or may not be:

• programmatically associated alternative content: Alternative content whose location and purpose can be programmatically determined from the original content for which it is serving as an alternative. For example, a paragraph might serve as a text alternative for an image, but it is only programmatically associated if this relationship is properly encoded (e.g. by "aria-labeledby").
  Note: ATAG 2.0 typically refers to programmatically associated alternative content.

assistive technology

Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that provides functionality to meet the requirements of people with disabilities (authors and end users). Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features. Examples include:

• screen magnifiers, and other visual reading assistants, which are used by people with visual, perceptual, and physical print disabilities to change text font, size, spacing, color, synchronization with speech, etc. in order improve the visual readability of rendered text and images;
• screen readers, which are used by people who are blind to read textual information through synthesized speech or Braille;
• text-to-speech software, which is used by some people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities to convert text into synthetic speech;
• speech recognition software, which are used by some people who have some physical disabilities;
• alternative keyboards, which are used by some people with physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers, single switches, sip/puff, and other special input devices);
• alternative pointing devices, which are used by some people with physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations.

audio

The technology of sound reproduction. Audio can be created synthetically (including speech synthesis), recorded from real-world sounds, or both.

author actions preventing generation of accessible web content

When the actions of authors prevent authoring tools from generating accessible web content (WCAG). Examples include: turning off accessible content support features, ignoring prompts for accessibility information (WCAG), providing faulty accessibility information (WCAG) at prompts, modifying the authoring tool (e.g. via scripting, macros), and installing plug-ins.

authors

People who use authoring tools to create or modify web content. The term may cover roles such as content authors, designers, programmers, publishers, testers, etc. (see Part B Conformance Applicability Note 6: Multiple authoring roles). Some authoring tools control who may be an author by managing author permissions.

author permission

Authorization that allows modification of given web content.

authoring action

Any action that authors can take using the authoring tool user interface that results in editing web content (e.g. typing text, deleting, inserting an element, applying a template). In contrast, most authoring tool user interfaces also enable actions that do not edit content (e.g. saving, publishing, setting preferences, viewing documentation).

• reversible authoring action: An authoring action that can be immediately and completely undone by the authoring tool upon a cancel request by an author. Examples of cancel requests include: "cancel", "undo", "redo" (when it used to reverse "undo"), "revert", and "roll-back"
  Note: It is acceptable for an authoring tool to collect a series of text entry actions (e.g. typed words, a series of backspaces) into a single reversible authoring action.

authoring outcome

The content or content modifications that result from authoring actions. Authoring outcomes are cumulative (e.g. text is entered, then styled, then made into a link, then given a title).

authoring practice

An approach that authors follow to achieve a given authoring outcome (e.g. controlling presentation with style sheets). Depending on the design of an authoring tool, authoring practices may be chosen by authors or by the authoring tool. Authoring practices may or may not be:

• accessible authoring practices (WCAG): An authoring practice in which the authoring outcome conforms to WCAG 2.0 at Level A, AA, or AAA. Some accessible authoring practices require accessibility information (WCAG).

authoring session

A state of the authoring tool in which web content can be edited by an author.

• end of an authoring session: The point at which the author has no further opportunity to make authoring actions without starting another session. The end of an authoring session may be determined by authors (e.g. closing a document, publishing) or by the authoring tool (e.g. when the authoring tool transfers editing permission to another author on a collaborative system).
  Note: The end of the authoring session is distinct from publishing. Automatic content generation may continue after the end of both the authoring session and initial publishing (e.g. content management system updates).

authoring tool

Any web-based or non-web-based application(s) that can be used by authors (alone or collaboratively) to create or modify web content for use by other people (other authors or end users).
Note 1: "application(s)": ATAG 2.0 may be conformed to by stand-alone applications or by collections of applications. If a conformance claim is made, then the claim must provide identifying information for each application and also for any required extensions, plug-ins, etc.
Note 2: "alone or collaboratively": Multiple authors may contribute to the creation of web content and, depending on the authoring tool, each author may work with different views of the content and different author permissions.
Note 3: "to create or modify web content": This clause rules out software that collects data from a person for other purposes (e.g. online grocery order form) and then creates web content from that data (e.g. a web-based warehouse order) without informing the person (however, WCAG 2.0 would still apply). This clause also rules out software used to create content exclusively in non-web content technologies.
Note 4: "for use by other people": This clause rules out the many web applications that allow people to modify web content that only they themselves experience (e.g. web-based email display settings) or that only provide input to automated processes (e.g. library catalog search page).
Examples of software that are generally considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0:

• web page authoring tools (e.g. WYSIWYG HTML editors)
• software for directly editing source code
• software for converting to web content technologies (e.g. "Save as HTML" features in office document applications)
• integrated development environments (e.g. for web application development)
• software that generates web content on the basis of templates, scripts, command-line input or "wizard"-type processes
• software for rapidly updating portions of web pages (e.g. blogging, wikis, online forums)
• software for generating/managing entire websites (e.g. content management systems, courseware tools, content aggregators)
• email clients that send messages using web content technologies
• multimedia authoring tools
• software for creating mobile web applications

Examples of software that are not considered authoring tools under ATAG 2.0 (in all cases, WCAG 2.0 still applies if the software is web-based):

• customizable personal portals: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the web content being edited is only available to the owner of the portal
• e-commerce order forms: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because the purpose of an e-commerce order form is to order a product, not communicate with other people via web content, even if the data collected by the form actually does result in web content (e.g. online tracking pages)
• stand-alone accessibility checkers: ATAG 2.0 does not apply because a stand-alone accessibility checker with no automated or semi-automated repair functionality does not actually modify web content. An accessibility checker with repair functionality or that is considered as part of a larger authoring process would be considered an authoring tool.
  

authoring tool user interface

The display and control mechanism that authors use to operate the authoring tool software. User interfaces may be non-web-based or web-based or a combination (e.g. 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 (e.g. Windows, Mac OS, Java Virtual Machine, iOS, Android).
• 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.

Authoring tool user interfaces may or may not be:

• accessible authoring tool user interfaces: Authoring tool user interfaces that meet the success criteria of a level in Part A of ATAG 2.0.

checking, accessibility

The process by which web content is evaluated for web content accessibility problems (WCAG). ATAG 2.0 recognizes three types of checking, based on increasing levels of automation of the tests:

• manual checking: Checking in which the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure.
• semi-automated checking: Checking in which the tests are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the tests.
• automated checking: Checking in which the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors.

An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types.

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. Content may or may not be:

• accessible content (WCAG): Content that would conform to WCAG 2.0, at either Level A, AA, or AAA, assuming that any web content technologies relied upon to satisfy the WCAG 2.0 success criteria are accessibility supported.
  • Note 1: If accessibility support for the relied upon technologies is lacking, then the content will not conform to WCAG 2.0 and one or more groups of end users with disabilities will likely experience difficulty accessing the content.
  • Note 2: Conformance to WCAG 2.0, even at the highest level (i.e. Level AAA), still may not make content "accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability".
• content being edited: The web content that an author can modify during an authoring session. The content being edited may be a complete piece of content (e.g. image, style sheet) or only part of a larger piece of content (e.g. a status update). The content being edited only includes content in web content technologies that the authoring tool supports (e.g. a WYSIWYG HTML editor allows editing of the HTML content of a web page editable, but not the images).

content properties

The individual pieces of information that make up the web content (e.g. the attributes and contents of elements, style sheet information).

content (structured)

Web 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 generation (content authoring, content editing)

The act of specifying the actual web content that will be rendered, played or executed by the end user's user agent. While the precise details of how content is created in any given system may vary widely, responsibility for the generation of content can be any combination of the following:

• author generated content: Web content for which authors are fully responsible. The author may only be responsible down to a particular level (e.g. when asked to type a text label, the author is responsible for the text, but not for how the label is marked up; when typing markup in a source editing-view, the author is not responsible for the fact that UNICODE is used to encode the text ).
• automatically-generated content: Web content for which developer-programmed functionality is fully responsible (e.g. what markup to output when an author requests to start a new document, automatically correcting markup errors).
• third-party content generation: Web content for which a third-party author is responsible (e.g. community shared templates).

content rendering

User interface functionality that authoring tools present if they render, play or execute the web content being edited. ATAG 2.0 recognizes several types of content renderings:

• conventional renderings (or "WYSIWYG"): When content is rendered in a way that is similar to the default rendering a user agent would create from the same content. While "WYSIWYG", standing for "What-you-see-is-what-you-get" is the common term, differences between user agents and end user settings mean that in reality there is no single typical end user experience; or
• unconventional renderings: When content is rendered differently than it would be in a typical user agent (e.g. rendering an audio file as a graphical waveform); or
• partial renderings: When 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).

content transformations

Processes that take content in one web content technology or non-web content technology (e.g. a word processing format) as input and produce content that has been optimized, restructured or recoded:

• Optimizing Content Transformations: Transformations in which the content technology is not changed and the structural features of the content technology that are employed also stay the same. Changes would not be expected to result in information loss (e.g. removing whitespace, replacing in-line styles with an external style sheet).
• Restructuring Content Transformations: Transformations in which the content technology stays the same, but the structural features of the technology used to markup the content are changed (e.g. linearizing tables, splitting a document into pages.
• Recoding Content Transformations: Transformations in which the content technology used to encode the content is changed (e.g. HTML to XHTML, a word processing format to HTML).

Note: Clipboard operations, in which content is copied to or pasted from the platform clipboard, are not considered content transformations.

control settings

Settings that relate to how authors operate 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

Settings that relate to how authors perceive the authoring tool. These include:

• audio display settings: the characteristics of audio output of music, sounds, and speech. Examples include volume, speech voices, voice speed, and voice emphasis.
• visual display settings: the characteristics of the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. Examples include fonts, sizes, colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.
• tactile display settings: 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 by a non-web based authoring tool or user agent. The document object may form part of a platform accessibility service 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

Keyboard interfaces are programmatic services provided by many platforms that allow operation in a device independent manner. A keyboard interface can allow keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a hardware keyboard (e.g. a touchscreen-controlled device can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected).
Note: 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

A user interface situation in which a keyboard interface may be used to move focus to, but not from, a user interface component or group of components.

label

Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to users to identify a component. A label is presented to all users whereas 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.

live

Information captured from a real-world event that is published with no more than a broadcast delay.
Note: A broadcast delay is a short (usually automated) delay, for example used in order to give the broadcaster time to queue or censor the audio (or video) feed, but not sufficient to allow significant editing.

markup language

A system of text annotations (e.g. elements in HTML) and processing rules that may be used to specify the structure, presentation or semantics of content. Examples of markup languages include HTML and SVG.

• markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content.

name

Text by which software can identify a user interface component to the author or end user. The name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology, whereas a label is presented to all users. In many (but not all) cases, the label and the name are the same.

non-text content

Any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters), emoticons, and images representing text.

normative

Required for conformance. One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to ATAG 2.0. Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance.

option

When an author is presented with choices.

• default option: A setting or value for an option that is assigned automatically by the authoring tool and remains in effect unless canceled or changed by the author.

platform

The software environment within which the authoring tool operates. Platforms provide a consistent operational environment on top of lower level software platforms or hardware. For web-based authoring user interfaces, the most relevant platform will be a user agent (e.g. browser). For non-web-based user interfaces, the range of platforms includes, but may not be limited to, desktop operating systems (e.g. GNOME desktop on Linux, Mac OS, Windows), mobile operating systems (e.g. Android, BlackBerry, iOS, Windows Phone), or cross-OS environments (e.g. Java), etc.
Note 1: Many platforms mediate communication between applications operating on the platform and assistive technology via a platform accessibility service.
Note 2: Accessibility guidelines for developers exist for many platforms.

platform accessibility service

A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e.g. MSAA, IAccessible2 and UI Automation for Windows applications, AXAPI for Mac OS X applications, GNOME Accessibility Toolkit API for GNOME applications, Java Access for Java applications). On some platforms, it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object.

plug-in

A program that runs as part of the authoring tool (e.g. a third-party checking and repair tool) and that is not part of web content being edited. Authors generally choose to include or exclude plug-ins from their authoring tool.

pre-authored content

Pieces of web content, created prior to an authoring session, that the authoring tool developer makes available to authors to use in the content being edited. Examples include clip art, sample videos, user interface widgets.
Note 1: For templates, an incomplete form of pre-authored content, see Guideline B.2.4.
Note 2: If the authoring tool uses pre-authored content automatically, see Guideline B.1.1.

• accessible pre-authored content (WCAG): Pre-authored content that is either already accessible web content (WCAG) or would be accessible, if it was appropriately inserted into an empty document.
  Note: If extensive author input is required to make use of pre-authored content, then the content may in fact be a template.

pre-authored content selection mechanism

A function beyond standard file selection that allows authors to select pre-authored content to use in an authoring session (e.g. clip art gallery, widget palette).

presentation

Rendering of the content in a form to be perceived by authors or end users.

programmatically determined (programmatically determinable)

Information that is encoded in a way that allows different software, including assistive technologies, to extract and present the information in different modalities. ATAG 2.0 uses this term in two contexts:

• Processing content: Whether the authoring tool is able to extract information from the web content (e.g. to extract the language of content from the markup).
• Communication between the authoring tool and assistive technology: For non-web-based user interfaces, this means making use of platform accessibility services, APIs, and, in some cases, document object models. For web-based user interfaces, this means ensuring that the user agent can pass on the information (e.g. through the use of WAI-ARIA).
  

prominence

A heuristic measure of how likely authors are to notice a user interface component in a user interface that they are operating. Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual properties (e.g. size, spacing, color), and even the modality of use (e.g. mouse vs. keyboard use).

• at least as prominent: For ATAG 2.0, a user interface component A is considered to be "at least as prominent" as another component B when, from a default state, component A becomes displayed (and enabled) with the same number or less "opening" actions than are required for component B to become displayed (and enabled).
  Note 1: When a container is open, all of the enabled components in the container (e.g. items in a list, items in a menu, buttons in a toolbar, all components in a dialog box) are considered to be displayed (and therefore are at least as prominent as each other), even if the container must be scrolled for them to become visible. This takes into account that different screen sizes and author settings will affect which components are visible at a given time.
  Note 2: "Opening actions" are actions made by authors on components within the user interface that result in new components becoming displayed or enabled. For example: (a) keyboard shortcut to a top-level menu item to display a sub-menu, (b) keyboard selection on a button to display a dialog box, (c) mouse click on a checkbox to enable previously disabled sub-items, etc. Actions that do not cause new components to become actionable (e.g. moving focus, scrolling a list), are not counted as "opening actions".
  Note 3: Keyboard shortcuts to components in closed containers are not counted as "opening actions" because the components have no prominence when they are not displayed. The same is true when authors must use "search" to reveal components in closed containers.
  Note 4: The "default state" is the state of the authoring tool at the beginning of an authoring session as set by the developer. The default state of many document authoring tools is an editing-view.

prompt

Any authoring tool initiated request for a decision or piece of information from authors. The term covers both requests that must be responded to immediately (e.g. modal dialog boxes) as well as less urgent requests (e.g. underlining a misspelled word).

publishing

Any point at which the authors or authoring tool make web content available to end users (e.g. uploading a web page, committing a change in a wiki, live streaming).

range

More than one item within a multi-item set.
Informative Note: ATAG 2.0 uses the term "range" where absolute measurements may not be practical (e.g. the set of all help documentation examples, the set of all templates). While the strict testable requirement is the definition "More than one item within a multi-item set", implementers are strongly encouraged to implement the success criteria more broadly.

relationships

Meaningful associations between distinct pieces of content.

repair (accessibility)

The process by which web content accessibility problems that have been identified within web content are resolved. ATAG 2.0 recognizes three types of repair, based on increasing levels of automation:

• manual repair: Where the repairs are carried out by authors. This includes the case where authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure;
• semi-automated repair: Where the repairs are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to complete the repair; and
• automated repair: Where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by authors.

restrictions, restricted web content authoring

When the web content that authors can specify with an authoring tool either must include or must not include certain content (e.g. elements, attributes, widgets). Many authoring tools restrict authoring in some way, which can either benefit accessibility (e.g. if text alternatives for non-text content are required) or detract from accessibility (e.g. if attributes for defining text alternatives are not available). In contrast, authoring tools that allow unrestricted web content authoring do not require any particular content to be included or not included (e.g. many source editing-views).

role

Text or a number by which software can identify the function of a component within web content (e.g. a string that indicates whether an image functions as a hyperlink, command button, or check box).

sequential keyboard access

Using a keyboard interface to navigate the focus one-by-one through all of the items in an ordered set (e.g. menu items, form fields) until the desired item is reached and activated. This is in contrast to direct keyboard access methods such as keyboard shortcuts and the use of bypass links.

technology (web content)

A mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents. Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, 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. Some common examples of web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, Silverlight, Flex, and JavaScript.

template

Content patterns that are filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce web content for end users (e.g. document templates, content management templates, presentation themes). Often templates will pre-specify at least some authoring decisions.

• accessible templates (WCAG): Templates that can be filled in to create web content that meets the WCAG 2.0 success criteria (Level A, AA or AAA), when both of the following are true:
  1. The author correctly follows any instructions provided (e.g. correctly responding to prompts, correctly replacing highlighted placeholders); and
  2. No further authoring occurs
  Note: Under these conditions, some templates will result in completely empty documents, which are considered accessible by default.

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.

time limit

The amount of time that an authoring tool provides to authors to perform a task (e.g. read a message, select an item, save a change). Examples include: authoring session timeouts, time-based presentations (e.g. tutorial video).

tutorial

A type of documentation that provides step-by-step instructions for performing multi-part tasks.

user agent

Any software that retrieves, renders and facilitates end user interaction with web content (e.g. web browsers, browser plug-ins, media players)

• In-Market User Agent: A user agent that can be procured by members of the public (free or otherwise). Usually, an in-market user agent will be a separate software from the authoring tool; however, sometimes a software may combine user agent and authoring tool functionality. These cases include:
  • Preview-Only: If the user agent can only render web content that it receives from the associated authoring functionality, then the software is an authoring tool with a preview feature. Such preview-only features are not considered in-market user agents.
  • User Agent with Authoring Tool Mode: If the user agent functionality must retrieve and open web content before it can be sent to the authoring tool functionality, then the software is a user agent with an authoring tool mode. If the user agent is used to preview content produced by the authoring tool mode, then it is to be considered an in-market user agent.
  • Combined User Agent/Authoring Tool: A user agent in which the default mode of user interaction enables editing the web content. These tools do not need previews because the author is already experiencing the content in the same way as end users.

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.

video

The technology of moving pictures or images. Video can be made up of animated or photographic images, or both.

view

A user interface function that authors use to interact with the web content being edited. ATAG 2.0 categorizes views according to whether they support editing:

• editing-views: Views in which some or all of the content is editable; or
• previews: Views in which no authoring actions are provided (i.e. the view is not editable). Previews are provided to present the web content being edited by the authoring tool as it would appear to end users of user agents. Previews may be implemented using actual in-market user agents, but this is not necessary.

ATAG 2.0 also recognizes several approaches to presenting the content in a view:

• source views: The content is presented in unrendered form (e.g. plain text editors); or
• rendered views: Content renderings (conventional, unconventional or partial) are presented; or
• property views: Only properties of the content are presented. The authoring tool then uses these properties to automatically generate the content to be published (e.g. CMS calendar widget that generates a calendar from the numeric month and year).

workflow

A customary sequence of steps or tasks that authors follow to produce a content deliverable. If an authoring tool is composed of a collection of applications (e.g. markup editor, image editor, and validation tool), then its workflows may include use of one or more of the applications.

付録B: 参考文献

For the latest version of any W3C standards 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.

This section is normative

[UAAG10]

"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0,", I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, and E. Hansen, eds.17 December 2002.

[WCAG20]

"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 ", B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, and G. Vanderheiden, eds. 11 December 2008.

This section is informative.

[ATAG10]

"Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", J. Treviranus, C. McCathieNevile, I. Jacobs, and J. Richards, eds., 3 February 2000.

付録C: 謝辞

Participants active in the AUWG at the time of publication:

• Tom Babinszki (IBM)
• Tim Boland (National Institute for Standards and Technology)
• Alastair Campbell (Nomensa)
• Alessandro Miele (Invited Expert)
• Jan Richards (Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University)
• Jeanne Spellman (W3C)
• Jutta Treviranus (WG Chair; Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University)

ATAG Candidate Recommendation Testing Volunteers

• Victoria Clark
• Maria Carmen C. Cruz
• Emanuela Gorla
• Michael Gower
• Anne Jackson
• Taliesin Love Smith

Other previously active AUWG participants and other contributors to ATAG 2.0:

Previous Editors:

Tim Boland, NIST

Matt May (until June 2005 while at W3C)

Kynn Bartlett, Giorgio Brajnik, Judy Brewer, Wendy Chisholm, Daniel Dardailler, Geoff Deering, Cherie Ekholm, Barry A. Feigenbaum, Katie Haritos-Shea, Kip Harris, Phill Jenkins, Len Kasday, Marjolein Katsma, Alex Li, William Loughborough, Karen Mardahl, Matt May, Charles McCathieNevile, Ann McMeekin, Matthias Müller-Prove, Liddy Nevile, Sueann Nichols, Graham Oliver, Greg Pisocky, Wendy Porch, Sarah Pulis, Bob Regan, Chris Ridpath, Andrew Ronksley, Gregory Rosmaita, Roberto Scano, 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 ED-OSE-10-C-0067. 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.