[Table of Contents]  |  [Implementing ATAG 2.0]


Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 日本語訳

W3C Recommendation 24 September 2015

This version:
Latest version:
Previous version:
Jan Richards, Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University
Jeanne Spellman, W3C
Jutta Treviranus, Inclusive Design Institute, OCAD University

Please refer to the errata for this document for any errors or issues reported since publication.

See also translations.


Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0は、障害のある著者がよりアクセスしやすく(パートA)、そしてすべての著者に対してよりアクセシブルなウェブコンテンツの制作を可能にし、サポートし、促進するように設計された(パートB)ウェブコンテンツオーサリングツールを設計するためのガイドラインを提供する。ATAGの技術的な資料や教育資料に関してはAuthoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) Overviewを参照。


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。

W3C Recommendation of ATAG 2.0

This is the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 W3C Recommendation of 24 September 2015 from the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. The Working Group created an implementation report that shows the exit criteria have been met. The Director approved transition to Recommendation after reviewing this report and after Advisory Committee vote which supported publication. There are no changes to the text of ATAG 2.0. There have been minor edits to the code to fix spacing and to remove superfluous or commented HTML.

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

ATAG 2.0 is supported by the associated non-normative document, Implementing ATAG 2.0. Although this document does not have the formal status that ATAG 2.0 itself has, it provides information important to understanding and implementing ATAG 2.0.

The Working Group requests that any comments sent to public-atag2-comments@w3.org. The archives for the public comments list are publicly available. Comments received on the ATAG 2.0 Recommendation cannot result in changes to this version of the guidelines, but may be addressed in errata or future versions of ATAG. The Working Group does not plan to make formal responses to comments. Archives of the ATAG WG mailing list discussions are publicly available, and future work undertaken by the Working Group or subsequent group may address comments received on this document.

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.


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.




これはAuthoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) バージョン2.0のW3C勧告(標準)である。このドキュメントにはオーサリングツールの開発者が、聴覚、認知、神経、身体、発話、および視覚障害を含む、障害を持つ人々がオーサリングツールをより使いやすくするための推奨事項が含まれている。




  1. オーサリングツール」という用語はATAG 2.0の特定の定義がある。いくつかの規範的な注釈を含む定義は、用語集に記載されている。
  2. アクセシブルなウェブコンテンツ (WCAG)」という用語と、「アクセシブルなテンプレート (WCAG)」などの関連用語は、ATAG 2.0では、レベルA、AAまたはAAAのいずれかで「WCAG 2.0に適合するコンテンツ」を指すために使用され、ウェブコンテンツ技術がWCAG 2.0 の達成基準を満たすために依存していると仮定すると、アクセシビリティはサポートされている。この用語の定義はWCAG2.0の最高レベル(レベルAAA)に適合するコンテンツであっても、「すべての種類、程度、または障害の組み合わせを持つ個人に対してアクセシブル」にはならないかもしれないというWCAG 2.0の解釈を反映している。詳細については、「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」を参照。
  3. ATAG 2.0には、標準的なユーザビリティの推奨事項は含まれていないが、他の人よりも障害を持つ人々に与える影響が大きい場合は除く。
  4. オーサリングツールは、Webアクセシビリティの1つの側面にすぎない。 Webアクセシビリティのさまざまな構成要素の概要と、それらがどのように連携するかについては、次を参照:

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:

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。


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.


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:



パートA: オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースをアクセシブルにする


  1. 「オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェース」の範囲: The Part A success criteria apply to all aspects of the オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェース that are concerned with producing the "included" web content technologies. This includes ビュー of the 編集中のウェブコンテンツ and features that are independent of the content being edited (e.g. menus, button bars, status bars, user preferences, ドキュメンテーション).
  2. Reflected content accessibility problems: The オーサリングツール is responsible for ensuring that 編集ビュー display the 編集中のウェブコンテンツ in a way that is more accessible to 著者 with disabilities (e.g. ensuring that 代替テキスト in the content can be プログラムによる解釈可能). However, where an オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースのアクセシビリティ問題 is caused directly by the content being edited (e.g. if an image in the content lacks a text alternative), then this would not be considered a deficiency in the accessibility of the オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェース.
  3. Developer control: The Part A success criteria only apply to the オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェース as it is provided by the 開発者. They do not apply to any subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g. user modifications of default settings, third-party plug-ins).
  4. User agent features: ウェブベースのオーサリングツール may rely on ユーザーエージェント features (e.g. keyboard navigation, find functions, display preferences, undo features) to satisfy success criteria. Conformance claims are optional, but any claim that is made must record the user agent(s).
  5. Accessibility of features provided to meet Part A: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェース, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.g. documentation, search functions). The only exemption is for プレビュー features, as long as they meet the relevant success criteria in Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing-views because all authors, including those with disabilities, benefit when preview features accurately reflect the functionality of user agents that are actually in use by エンドユーザー.
  6. Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria, the success criteria only apply when these semantics are encoded programmatically (e.g. text describing an image can only be considered a 非テキストコンテンツの代替テキスト when this role is encoded within markup).

原則 A.1: オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースは適用可能なアクセシビリティガイドラインに従う

ガイドライン A.1.1: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)ウェブベースの機能にアクセスできることを確保する。 [Implementing A.1.1]

根拠: オーサリングツール(またはオーサリングツールの一部)がウェブベースの場合、WCAG 2.0に適合することで支援技術を使用する人を含む、すべての著者によるアクセスが容易になる。

A.1.1.1 ウェブベースのアクセシビリティ (WCAG):

オーサリングツールウェブベースのユーザーインターフェースが含まれている場合、それらのウェブベースのユーザーインターフェースはWCAG 2.0の達成基準を満たす。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

ガイドライン A.1.2: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)非ウェブベースの機能にアクセスできることを確保する。 [Implementing A.1.2]

根拠: オーサリングツール(またはオーサリングツールの一部)が非ウェブベースの場合、既存のプラットフォームのアクセシビリティガイドラインに従い、またプラットフォームアクセシビリティサービスとの通信を実装することにより、支援技術を使用する人を含む、すべての著者によるアクセスが容易になる。

A.1.2.1 アクセシビリティガイドライン:


  • 注: (任意の)適合表明の結果の説明には、ユーザーインターフェースアクセシビリティガイドラインに従ったことを記録するべきである。

A.1.2.2 プラットフォームアクセシビリティサービス:


  • 注: 任意の適合表明の結果の説明には、実装されたプラットフォームアクセシビリティサービスを記録するべきである。

原則 A.2: 編集ビューは知覚可能にする

ガイドライン A.2.1: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)著者に対して代替コンテンツを利用可能にする。 [Implementing A.2.1]

根拠: 一部の著者は、編集中のウェブコンテンツとのやりとりのために代替コンテンツにアクセスする必要がある。

A.2.1.1 レンダリングされた非テキストコンテンツの代替テキスト:


A.2.1.2 レンダリングされた時間依存メディアの代替コンテンツ:


ガイドライン A.2.2: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)編集ビューのプレゼンテーションはプログラムによる解釈が可能であることを確保する。 [Implementing A.2.2]

根拠: プレゼンテーションがステータスメッセージを伝えるために使用されている場合(例えばスペルミスの単語に下線を引くなど)やエンドユーザー編集中のウェブコンテンツをどのように体験するかについての情報を提供している場合、一部の著者はそれらの支援技術を用いて編集ビューのプレゼンテーションについての詳細にアクセスする必要がある。

A.2.2.1 編集ビューのステータスインジケータ:


  • 注: ステータスインジケータは、エラー(スペルミスなど)、変更の追跡、隠し要素、またはその他の情報を示す場合がある。

A.2.2.2 レンダリングされたテキストプロパティへのアクセス:

If an editing-view renders any text formatting properties that authors can also edit using the editing-view, then the properties can be programmatically determined. レベルAA

原則 A.3: 編集ビューは操作可能にする

ガイドライン A.3.1: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)オーサリング機能へのキーボードアクセスを提供する。[Implementing A.3.1]

根拠: 可動に制限がある、または視覚障害を持つ一部の著者には、マウスを使用せず代わりにキーボードインターフェースでオーサリングツールのすべての機能に対するアクセスを必要としている。

A.3.1.1 キーボードアクセス(最低限レベル):


  • 注1: キーボードインターフェースは、デバイスに依存しない操作が可能な多くのプラットフォームで提供されるプログラム型のサービスである。この達成基準はハードウェアキーボードの存在を意味するものではない。
  • 注2: 軌跡の例外は、根本的な機能に関するものであり、入力手法に関するものではない。例えば手書き入力でテキストを入力する場合、入力手法(手書き)には軌跡に依存する入力が必要だが、根本的な機能(テキスト入力)には必要ない。軌跡の例外にはポインティングデバイスから連続的にサンプリングされる他の入力変数(圧力、速度、角度など)が含まれる。
  • 注3: この達成基準は、キーボード操作に加えて、その他の入力手段(マウスやタッチなど)を提供することを禁ずるものでも妨げるものでもない。

A.3.1.2 キーボードトラップなし:

キーボードインターフェースを用いてキーボードフォーカスをコンポーネントに移動できる場合、キーボードインタフェースだけを用いてそのコンポーネントからフォーカスを移動することができる。さらに、修飾キーを伴わない矢印キー、 Tab キー、またはフォーカスを外すその他の標準的な方法でフォーカスを外せない場合は、フォーカスを外す方法が著者に提供される。レベルA

A.3.1.3 効果的なキーボードアクセス:

The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard access. レベルAA

A.3.1.4 キーボードアクセス(拡張):

All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes. レベルAAA

A.3.1.5 キーボードアクセスのカスタマイズ:

If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands, then those keyboard commands can be customized. レベルAAA

A.3.1.6 キーボードコマンドの提示:

If the authoring tool includes keyboard commands,

then the authoring tool provides a way for authors to determine the keyboard commands associated with authoring tool user interface components. レベルAAA

ガイドライン A.3.2: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)著者に十分な時間を与える。 [Implementing A.3.2]

根拠: タイピングやマウスの操作、情報の処理が困難な一部の著者に対して、短い制限時間や移動するターゲットをクリックするなどの早い反応速度を必要とすることを防ぐことができる。

A.3.2.1 自動保存(最低限レベル):


A.3.2.2 調整可能なタイミング:


  • (a) 解除: 制限時間がある機能を使用する前に、著者は制限時間を解除することができる。または、
  • (b) 調整: 制限時間がある機能を使用する前に、著者は少なくともデフォルト設定の10倍を超える、大幅な制限時間の調整をすることができる。または、
  • (c) 延長: 時間切れになる前に利用者に警告し、かつ少なくとも20秒間の猶予をもって、例えば「スペースキーを押す」などの簡単な操作により、利用者が制限時間を少なくとも10倍以上延長することができる。または、
  • (d) リアルタイムの例外: リアルタイムのイベント (例えば、コラボレーションオーサリングなど) において制限時間が必須の要素で、その制限時間に代わる手段が存在しない。または、
  • (e) 必要不可欠な例外: 制限時間が必要不可欠なもので、制限時間を延長することが行動を無効にすることになる。または、
  • (f) 20時間の例外: 制限時間が20時間よりも長い。

A.3.2.3 静的な入力コンポーネント:


A.3.2.4 コンテンツ編集の保存(拡張):

The authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool. レベルAAA

ガイドライン A.3.3: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)著者が発作を引き起こすような閃光を防ぐように支援する。 [Implementing A.3.3]

根拠: 点滅は、感受性発作障害を持つ著者の発作を引き起こす可能性がある。

A.3.3.1 静的ビューオプション:


ガイドライン A.3.4: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)コンテンツの構造を通じてナビテーションと編集を強化する。 [Implementing A.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 navigating and editing the content.

A.3.4.1 構造からのナビゲート:

If editing-views expose the markup elements in the web content being edited, then the markup elements (e.g. source code, content renderings) are selectable and navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection focus between elements. レベルAA

A.3.4.2 プログラミングによる関連付けからのナビゲート:

If editing-views allow editing of programmatic relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided that support navigation between the related content. レベルAAA

  • Note: Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the authoring tool, relationships may include, but are not limited to, element nesting, headings, labeling, programmatic definitions, and ID relationships.

ガイドライン A.3.5: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)コンテンツのテキスト検索を提供する。 [Implementing 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 edited.

A.3.5.1 テキスト検索:

If the authoring tool provides an editing-view of text-based content, then the editing-view enables text search, such that all of the following are true: レベルAA

  • (a) All Editable Text: Any text content that is editable by the editing-view is searchable (including alternative content); and
  • (b) Match: Matching results can be presented to authors and given focus; and
  • (c) No Match: Authors are informed when no results are found; and
  • (d) Two-way: The search can be made forwards or backwards.

ガイドライン A.3.6: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)環境設定を管理する。 [Implementing A.3.6]

根拠: 一部の著者には公開されたウェブコンテンツのために明示したいプレゼンテーションとは異なる独自のディスプレイの設定を変えられる必要がある。キーボードとディスプレイの環境設定を保存、およびリロードすることができると、時間の経過とともに異なるニーズ(例えば疲労など)を持つ著者に有益である。

A.3.6.1 独立したディスプレイ:


A.3.6.2 設定の保存:

If the authoring tool includes display and/or control settings, then these settings can be saved between authoring sessions. レベルAA

A.3.6.3 プラットフォームの設定の適用:

The authoring tool respects changes in platform display and control settings, unless authors select more specific display and control settings using the authoring tool. レベルAA

ガイドライン A.3.7: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)プレビューは、少なくとも市場のユーザーエージェントと同様にアクセシブルであることを確保する [Implementing A.3.7]

根拠: 著者ワークフローには、ユーザーエージェントウェブコンテンツをどのようにエンドユーザーに表示させるかを定期的に確認することが含まれるため、多くのオーサリングツールプレビュー機能を提供している。障害を持つ著者は自分の仕事をチェックする同じような機会が必要である。

A.3.7.1 プレビュー(最低限レベル):


  • (a) 市場のユーザーエージェント: プレビューは市場ユーザーエージェントを用いてコンテンツをレンダリングする。または、
  • (b) UAAG (Level A): プレビューはUser Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0のレベルAに適合している[UAAG10]

A.3.7.2 プレビュー(拡張):

If a preview is provided, then authors can specify which user agent performs the preview. レベルAAA

原則 A.4: 編集ビューは理解可能にする

ガイドライン A.4.1: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)著者のミスを防ぎ、修正を手助けする。 [Implementing A.4.1]

根拠: 障害を持つ一部の著者には、細かい動きが困難であったり音声認識システムのエラーなどの要因により、入力エラーの影響を受けやすい。

A.4.1.1 コンテンツ変更の可逆性(最低限):


A.4.1.2 設定変更の確認:


A.4.1.3 コンテンツ変更の可逆性(拡張):

Authors can sequentially reverse a series of reversible authoring actions. レベルAAA

ガイドライン A.4.2: (オーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースに対して)すべてのアクセシビリティ機能を含むユーザーインターフェースを文書化する。 [Implementing A.4.2]

根拠: 一部の著者は、ドキュメンテーションなしにオーサリングツールのユーザーインターフェースを理解したり操作することができない場合がある。

A.4.2.1 アクセシビリティ機能の説明:

ATAG 2.0のパートAを満たすために使用しているオーサリングツールの各機能について、次のいずれかを少なくともひとつ満たす: レベルA

A.4.2.2 すべての機能のドキュメント化:

For each authoring tool feature, at least one of the following is true: レベルAA

  • (a) Described in the Documentation: Use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool's documentation; or
  • (b) Described in the Interface: Use of the feature is explained in the authoring tool user interface; or
  • (c) Platform Service: The feature is a service provided by an underlying platform; or
  • (d) Not Used by Authors: The feature is not used directly by authors (e.g. passing information to a platform accessibility service).

パートB: アクセシブルなコンテンツの制作をサポートする

パートB 適合適用性に関する注記:

  1. Author availability: Any Part B success criteria that refer to authors only apply during authoring sessions.
  2. Developer control: The Part B success criteria only apply to the authoring tool as it is provided by the developer. This does not include subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g. third-party plug-ins, user-defined templates, user modifications of default settings).
  3. Applicability after the end of an authoring session: Authoring tools are responsible for the web content accessibility (WCAG) of web content that they automatically generate after the end of an author's authoring session (see Success Criterion B.1.1.1). For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a content management system, these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content. Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of content that the author causes, whether it is author-generated or automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified (e.g. a third-party feed).
  4. Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.g. an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking tool).
  5. Accessibility of features provided to meet Part B: The Part A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.g. checking tools, repair tools, tutorials, documentation).
  6. Multiple authoring roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles, each with different views and content editing permissions (e.g. a content management system may separate the roles of designers, content authors, and quality assurers). In these cases, the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole, not to the view provided to any particular authoring role. Accessible content support features should be made available to any authoring role where it would be useful.
  7. Unrecognizable content: When success criteria require authoring tools to treat web content according to semantic criteria, the success criteria only apply when these semantics are encoded programmatically (e.g. text describing an image can only be considered a text alternatives for non-text content when this role is encoded within markup).

原則 B.1: 完全自動プロセスはアクセシブルなコンテンツを生成する

ガイドライン B.1.1: 自動的に指定されたコンテンツがアクセシブルであることを確保する [Implementing B.1.1]

根拠: オーサリングツールアクセシビリティ問題 (WCAG)を含むウェブコンテンツ自動的に生成する場合、著者に追加の修正作業を強いることになる。

B.1.1.1 オーサリングセッション後に自動生成されるコンテンツ(WCAG):

オーサリングツールオーサリングセッションの終了後にウェブコンテンツ自動生成しない、または著者がコンテンツにアクセシブルなウェブコンテンツ (WCAG)を指定することができる。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

B.1.1.2 オーサリングセッション中に自動生成されるコンテンツ(WCAG):

オーサリングツールオーサリングセッション中にウェブコンテンツ自動的に生成する機能を提供する場合、次のいずれかを少なくともひとつ満たす。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)
  • (a) アクセシブル: コンテンツは、著者の入力なしでアクセシブルなウェブコンテンツ(WCAG)になる。または、
  • (b) 要求: 自動生成のプロセス中に、著者はいくつかの必要なアクセシビリティ情報(WCAG)要求される。または、
  • (c) 自動チェック: 自動生成のプロセス後、アクセシビリティのチェックが自動的に実行される。または、
  • (d) チェックの提案: 自動生成のプロセス後、オーサリングツールは著者にアクセシビリティチェックを実行するように要求する。

ガイドライン B.1.2: アクセシビリティ情報が保持されていることを確保する。 [Implementing B.1.2]

根拠: アクセシビリティ情報(WCAG)は、ウェブコンテンツの変換による入力と出力の間で同等レベルのウェブコンテンツアクセシビリティ (WCAG)を維持するために重要である。

B.1.2.1 再構築と再コード化の変換 (WCAG):

オーサリングツール再構築の変換、または再コード化の変換を提供し、出力のウェブコンテンツの技術と同等なメカニズムが存在する場合、次のいずれかを少なくともひとつ満たす。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

  • (a) 保存: アクセシビリティ情報(WCAG)は出力に保存される。または、
  • (b) 警告: アクセシビリティ情報(WCAG)が失われる可能性があることを警告するデフォルトのオプションがある(例えば、ベクターグラフィックをラスタイメージフォーマットに保存する場合など)、または
  • (c) 自動チェック: 変換後、アクセシビリティチェックが自動的に実行される、または
  • (d) チェックの提案: オーサリングツールは著者にアクセシビリティチェックを実行するように要求する。

B.1.2.2 オーサリングツール内のコピーペースト (WCAG):

オーサリングツール構造化されたコンテンツのコピー&ペーストをサポートしている場合、オーサリングツールは、ソースとコピーの貼り付け先、およびソースと結果が同等のウェブコンテンツ技術を使用している際に、コピーされたコンテンツのアクセシビリティ情報(WCAG)はすべて保持される。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

B.1.2.3 アクセシビリティを保持する最適化:


B.1.2.4 非テキストコンテンツの代替テキストの保持:


原則 B.2: 著者はアクセシブルなコンテンツを生成する際にサポートされる

ガイドライン B.2.1: アクセシブルなコンテンツの制作が可能であることを確保する。 [Implementing B.2.1]

根拠: アクセシブルなウェブコンテンツ (WCAG)の制作をサポートするには、少なくともオーサリングツールを用いてWCAG 2.0に適合したウェブコンテンツを制作することが可能なことである。

B.2.1.1 アクセシブルなコンテンツの実現 (WCAG):

オーサリングツール著者が指定できるウェブコンテンツ制限を設けない、またはWCAG 2.0の達成基準を満たすことを妨げない。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

ガイドライン B.2.2: 著者がアクセシブルなコンテンツを作成するようにガイドする。 [Implementing B.2.2]

根拠: アクセシブルなウェブコンテンツ (WCAG)の作成と保守に対して着手する際のガイドは、著者ウェブコンテンツのアクセシビリティ問題(WCAG)の軽減と修正の負荷が少なくて済む。

B.2.2.1 アクセシブルなオプションの強調 (WCAG):

著者に同じオーサリングの結果(スタイリングテキストなど)を果たすためのオーサリングアクション選択肢が提供されている場合、アクセシブルなウェブコンテンツ(WCAG)となる選択肢はそうでない選択肢よりも少なくとも目立つようにする。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

B.2.2.2 アクセシビリティプロパティの設定(WCAG):

オーサリングツールがウェブコンテンツプロパティ(例えば、属性値など)を設定するメカニズムを提供する場合、アクセシビリティ情報(WCAG)に関連するウェブコンテンツプロパティを設定するためのメカニズムも提供される。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

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。

B.2.3.1 代替コンテンツは編集可能 (WCAG):

オーサリングツールが非テキストコンテンツを追加するための機能を提供する場合、プログラムで関連付けられた非テキストコンテンツの代替テキスト著者が編集することができる。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

B.2.3.2 代替テキストの自動修正:


B.2.3.3 再利用のための保存:


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。

B.2.4.1 アクセシブルなテンプレートオプション(WCAG):

オーサリングツールテンプレートを提供する場合、テンプレートを使用する際の選択肢の集まりに対してアクセシブルなテンプレート(WCAG) 選択肢が存在する。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

B.2.4.2 テンプレートのアクセシビリティの特定:

If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible template (WCAG) options, then the template selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options. レベルAA

B.2.4.3 著者の作成したテンプレート:

If the authoring tool includes a template selection mechanism and allows authors to create new non-accessible templates (WCAG), then authors can enable the template selection mechanism to display distinctions between accessible and non-accessible templates that they create. レベルAA

B.2.4.4 アクセシブルなテンプレートオプション(拡張):

If the authoring tool provides templates, then all of the templates are accessible template (to WCAG Level AA). レベルAAA

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.

B.2.5.1 事前に作成されたアクセシブルなコンテンツのオプション:

If the authoring tool provides pre-authored content, then a range of accessible pre-authored content (to WCAG Level AA) options are provided. レベルAA

B.2.5.2 事前に作成されたコンテンツのアクセシビリティの特定:

If the authoring tool includes a pre-authored content selection mechanism and provides any non-accessible pre-authored content (WCAG Level AA) options, then the selection mechanism can display distinctions between the accessible and non-accessible options. レベルAA

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)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。

B.3.1.1 チェックの補助(WCAG):

オーサリングツールWCAG 2.0の達成基準に違反する可能性がある方法で著者ウェブコンテンツを追加、または編集する機能を提供する場合、その達成基準に対するアクセシビリティのチェックを提供する(例えば、画像を挿入するHTMLのオーサリングツールは代替テキストをチェックすべきであり、テキストトラックを編集可能な映像のオーサリングツールはキャプションをチェックするべきである)。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

B.3.1.2 著者の決定を支援:


B.3.1.3 著者の特定を支援:


B.3.1.4 ステータスレポート:

If the authoring tool provides checks, then authors can receive an accessibility status report based on the results of the accessibility checks. レベルAA

B.3.1.5 結果のプログラムによる関連付け:

If the authoring tool provides checks, then the authoring tool can programmatically associate accessibility checking results with the web content that was checked. レベルAA

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。

B.3.2.1 修正支援 (WCAG):

WCAG 2.0の達成基準が満たされていないことをチェック達成基準B.3.1.1を参照)が検出できる場合は、修正の提案を提供する。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

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。

B.4.1.1 デフォルトで有効な機能:


B.4.1.2 機能の再有効化するオプション:


B.4.1.3 機能の無効化の警告:

The authoring tool does not include the option to turn off its accessible content support features or, if these features can be turned off, authors are informed that this may increase the risk of content accessibility problems (WCAG). レベルAA

B.4.1.4 機能を目立たせる:

All accessible content support features are at least as prominent as features related to either invalid markup, syntax errors, spelling errors or grammar errors. レベルAA

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。

B.4.2.1 慣例となるモデル(WCAG):

ドキュメンテーションに含まれる実例の集まりは、アクセシブルなオーサリングの慣例(WCAG)(例えば、マークアップや, WYSIWYG編集ビューのスクリーンショットなど)を示す。レベルAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAの達成基準; レベルAAはWCAG 2.0のレベルAとAAの達成基準; レベルAAAはWCAG 2.0のすべての達成基準を満たす)

B.4.2.2 機能の説明書:


B.4.2.3 チュートリアル:

The authoring tool provides a tutorial for an accessible authoring process that is specific to that authoring tool. レベルAAA

B.4.2.4 説明の索引:

The authoring tool documentation contains an index to the instructions for using any accessible content support features. レベルAAA


This section is normative.

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.



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


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:


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.


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:

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.


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.


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.


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.


  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:
  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


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.


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

This section is normative.

This appendix contains definitions for all of the significant/important/unfamiliar terms used in the normative parts of this standard, including terms used in the Conformance section. Please consult http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ for more information on the role of definitions in standards quality.

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

"User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0,", I. Jacobs, J. Gunderson, and E. Hansen, eds.17 December 2002.
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 ", B. Caldwell, M. Cooper, L. Guarino Reid, and G. Vanderheiden, eds. 11 December 2008.

This section is informative.

"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:

ATAG Candidate Recommendation Testing Volunteers

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.