Never mind the content: the importance of Authoring Tools in achieving Web Accessibility School of Computing University of Dundee David Sloan Glasgow, May 27 th 2009

Outline What do we mean by authoring tool accessibility? And why it’s more of a challenge now than ever before Defining good support for Authoring Tool Accessibility Authoring tool accessibility in the real world: Common problems What we need to do If you are an authoring tool developer If you are responsible for procuring or using a web authoring tool

What do we mean by authoring tool accessibility?

And why it’s more of a challenge now than ever before

Defining good support for Authoring Tool Accessibility

Authoring tool accessibility in the real world:

Common problems

What we need to do

If you are an authoring tool developer

If you are responsible for procuring or using a web authoring tool

What’s an authoring tool? Software that supports web content publishing ‘ Classic’ web development environments: from Dreamweaver to Frontpage to Notepad Software with ‘Publish as HTML’ functionality - Word, Powerpoint Web based publishing systems Corporate tools: content/information management systems (CMSs) E-learning tools: e-assessment/survey tools, VLEs, e-portfolios Personal/collaborative tools: blogging tools, wikis (Wordpress, Wikipedia…) ‘ Web 2’: Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Youtube, Twitter Second-hand publishing - e.g. email archives; newsfeed aggregators …

Software that supports web content publishing

‘ Classic’ web development environments: from Dreamweaver to Frontpage to Notepad

Software with ‘Publish as HTML’ functionality - Word, Powerpoint

Web based publishing systems

Corporate tools: content/information management systems (CMSs)

E-learning tools: e-assessment/survey tools, VLEs, e-portfolios

Personal/collaborative tools: blogging tools, wikis (Wordpress, Wikipedia…)

‘ Web 2’: Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Youtube, Twitter

Second-hand publishing - e.g. email archives; newsfeed aggregators

…

Accessibility and Authoring in a Web 2.0 world Accessibility/web standards awareness increasing amongst Web design professionals But more tools, more diversity in type of authoring tools means more non-experts are authoring web content Do these authors know (or care) about the accessibility of the content they create? Are they aware of ‘accessibility’ as an issue? And can the tools actually support accessible authoring?

Accessibility/web standards awareness increasing amongst Web design professionals

But more tools, more diversity in type of authoring tools means more non-experts are authoring web content

Do these authors know (or care) about the accessibility of the content they create?

Are they aware of ‘accessibility’ as an issue?

And can the tools actually support accessible authoring?

What do (or should) we mean by authoring tool accessibility? Suggested definition: How well does the tool support the creation of accessible web content amongst authors, regardless of ability? This covers: Accessibility of the tool’s output Accessibility of the tool’s interface Ease with which authors can create accessible content

Suggested definition: How well does the tool support the creation of accessible web content amongst authors, regardless of ability?

This covers:

Accessibility of the tool’s output

Accessibility of the tool’s interface

Ease with which authors can create accessible content

Standards, guidelines and authoring tool accessibility Main reference is W3C Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) Version 1 published 2000 Version 2 in draft ATAG mentioned in PAS 78 and in-draft BS8878 Close relationship between ATAG and W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Especially for web-based authoring tools

Main reference is W3C Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG)

Version 1 published 2000

Version 2 in draft

ATAG mentioned in PAS 78 and in-draft BS8878

Close relationship between ATAG and W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

Especially for web-based authoring tools

ATAG 1.0 Support accessible authoring practices (4 checkpoints) Generate standard markup (3 checkpoints) Support the creation of accessible content (5 checkpoints) Provide ways of checking and correcting inaccessible content (5 checkpoints) Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall look and feel (2 checkpoints) Promote accessibility in help and documentation (3 checkpoints) Ensure the authoring tool is accessible to disabled people (6 checkpoints)

Support accessible authoring practices (4 checkpoints)

Generate standard markup (3 checkpoints)

Support the creation of accessible content (5 checkpoints)

Provide ways of checking and correcting inaccessible content (5 checkpoints)

Integrate accessibility solutions into the overall look and feel (2 checkpoints)

Promote accessibility in help and documentation (3 checkpoints)

Ensure the authoring tool is accessible to disabled people (6 checkpoints)

ATAG 2.0 (May 2009 draft) PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible Principle A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines (2 guidelines) Principle A.2: Editing views must be perceivable (3 guidelines) Principle A.3: Editing views must be operable (7 guidelines) Principle A.4: Editing views must be understandable (1 guideline)

PART A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible

Principle A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces must follow applicable accessibility guidelines (2 guidelines)

Principle A.2: Editing views must be perceivable (3 guidelines)

Principle A.3: Editing views must be operable (7 guidelines)

Principle A.4: Editing views must be understandable (1 guideline)

ATAG 2.0 (May 2009 draft) PART B: Support the production of accessible content Principle B.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled (3 guidelines) Principle B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content (5 guidelines) Principle B.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated (5 guidelines)

PART B: Support the production of accessible content

Principle B.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled (3 guidelines)

Principle B.2: Authors must be supported in the production of accessible content (5 guidelines)

Principle B.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated (5 guidelines)

ATAG awareness So ATAG covers all three parts of our definition BUT - ATAG awareness seems to be very low, in comparison to WCAG Amongst tool developers Amongst tool commissioners Amongst accessibility experts (??) Why?

So ATAG covers all three parts of our definition

BUT - ATAG awareness seems to be very low, in comparison to WCAG

Amongst tool developers

Amongst tool commissioners

Amongst accessibility experts (??)

Why?

Implications of non-conformance with ATAG At an organisational level More training and support required Technical work-arounds (e.g. locking down functionality, developing ‘accessible’ templates) More monitoring of output For individuals Authors have to take more time to check their work And consider how to manage accessibility limitations Or they may not…

At an organisational level

More training and support required

Technical work-arounds (e.g. locking down functionality, developing ‘accessible’ templates)

More monitoring of output

For individuals

Authors have to take more time to check their work

And consider how to manage accessibility limitations

Or they may not…

Some examples From recent DMAG evaluations, including CMSs, a VLE and e-assessment/survey tools Challenges for authors Difficulty in adding suitable text alternatives No encouragement in adding structural HTML Difficult to check for accessibility, or find help Accessibility issues with the authoring interface and the output Keyboard inaccessibility - of interface and output Invalid HTML generated

From recent DMAG evaluations, including CMSs, a VLE and e-assessment/survey tools

Challenges for authors

Difficulty in adding suitable text alternatives

No encouragement in adding structural HTML

Difficult to check for accessibility, or find help

Accessibility issues with the authoring interface and the output

Keyboard inaccessibility - of interface and output

Invalid HTML generated

Inserting alt text - examples

Improving collective awareness of authoring tool accessibility W3C ATAG is the relevant accessibility standard for authoring tools - not the DDA, not WCAG… So awareness needs to be raised amongst authoring tool customers of: Problems caused by ATAG non-conformance Benefits of ATAG conformance Leading to increased incentivisation for tool developers to improve ATAG conformance

W3C ATAG is the relevant accessibility standard for authoring tools - not the DDA, not WCAG…

So awareness needs to be raised amongst authoring tool customers of:

Problems caused by ATAG non-conformance

Benefits of ATAG conformance

Leading to increased incentivisation for tool developers to improve ATAG conformance

Authoring tool accessibility policy Customers: Use ATAG to assess authoring tools for accessibility issues How easy is it for a non-expert to inadvertently create inaccessible content? ATAG conformance should influence procurement, selection, implementation and management/support Findings should influence strategy for dealing with shortcomings Developers/vendors: Work towards ATAG conformance Express authoring tool accessibility support in terms of ATAG conformance

Customers: Use ATAG to assess authoring tools for accessibility issues

How easy is it for a non-expert to inadvertently create inaccessible content?

ATAG conformance should influence procurement, selection, implementation and management/support

Findings should influence strategy for dealing with shortcomings

Developers/vendors: Work towards ATAG conformance

Express authoring tool accessibility support in terms of ATAG conformance

Closing thought Authoring tools need to be able to support non-experts in authoring accessible content So evaluation and selection mustn’t focus only on the quality of the tool’s output or interface … but also the quality of the process in creating that output

Authoring tools need to be able to support non-experts in authoring accessible content

So evaluation and selection mustn’t focus only on the quality of the tool’s output or interface

… but also the quality of the process in creating that output

Some useful links W3C ATAG 1.0 (2000) http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/Overview.html W3C ATAG 2.0 (May 2009 draft) http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/Overview.html Joe Clark’s ATAG evaluation of Word Press (2006): http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WordPress-ATAG-evaluation.html Making TinyMCE an accessible text editor: http://wiki.moxiecode.com/index.php/TinyMCE:Accessibility

W3C ATAG 1.0 (2000) http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/Overview.html

W3C ATAG 2.0 (May 2009 draft) http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/Overview.html

Joe Clark’s ATAG evaluation of Word Press (2006): http://joeclark.org/access/webaccess/WordPress-ATAG-evaluation.html

Making TinyMCE an accessible text editor: http://wiki.moxiecode.com/index.php/TinyMCE:Accessibility

David Sloan Digital Media Access Group School of Computing University of Dundee [email_address] www.twitter.com/sloandr 01382 385598

David Sloan

Digital Media Access Group

School of Computing

University of Dundee

[email_address]

www.twitter.com/sloandr

01382 385598