skip to main content
10.1145/3563137.3563153acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdsaiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Authoring tools are critical to the accessibility of the documents: Recommendations for word processors, including interaction design

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 May 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Of all the digital documents that are published daily, only part of them are accessible to people with disabilities or temporary or situational disabilities or functional diversity. This contravenes the growing interest and legal pressure to produce accessible content. Three agents are involved in the production of a digital document; the digital format of the document, the authoring tool that creates the content according to the potential of said format and, finally, the author of the document. The most widespread digital formats (ODF, PDF/UA or HTML) offer the elements to potentially create documents with a high degree of accessibility, and therefore the attention should be directed to the authoring tools and the authors of the documents. The latter should be accounted for relevant elements in accessibility as the use of plain language or clarity in the presentation; however, authoring tools are primarily responsible for producing accessible documents. ATAG provides recommendations for authoring tools, but they are general (they apply to all authoring tools) and do not include any interaction requirements. This study proposes 15 recommendations that could provide a second level of depth in the requirements of authoring tools customized to word processors and that also include recommendations on the interaction design. To do this, the article classifies the different items that can be found in textual documents, starting from books as a superset of any textual document; subsequently, it describes the main barriers users face according to their functional diversity. The final result, based on the classification of the elements and the different ways of accessing the content, are 15 recommendations for textual documents authoring tools.

References

  1. A. Jembu Rajkumar, J. B. Jordan, and J. Lazar, “Improving PDF Accessibility Tools for Content Developers: Looking Towards the Future,” in Designing for Inclusion, 2020, pp. 173–181, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-43865-4_18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. N. Williams, “Why GOV.UK content should be published in HTML and not PDF - Government Digital Service,” 2018. https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/16/why-gov-uk-content-should-be-published-in-html-and-not-pdf/ (accessed May 27, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Treviranus, “Authoring Tools,” in Web accessibility, Springer, London, 2008, pp. 127–138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1.” https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ (accessed May 27, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. “Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0,” 2015. https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/ (accessed May 24, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. ETSI, “ETSI EN 301 549 - V3.2.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services,” 2021. .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Weir, “Opendocument format: The standard for office documents,” IEEE Internet Comput., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 83–87, 2009, doi: 10.1109/MIC.2009.42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. “ISO - ISO 14289-1:2014 - Document management applications — Electronic document file format enhancement for accessibility — Part 1: Use of ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1).” https://www.iso.org/standard/64599.html (accessed May 27, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. “HTML Standard,” 2022. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/ (accessed May 19, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. S. de Souza, “The semiotic engineering of user interface languages,” Int. J. Man. Mach. Stud., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 753–773, Nov. 1993, doi: 10.1006/IMMS.1993.1082.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. I. D. P. F. (IDPF), “EPUB Accessibility 1.0,” 2017. http://idpf.org/epub/a11y/ (accessed May 27, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. A. Ghufron and F. Rosyida, “The Role of Grammarly in Assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Writing,” Ling. Cult., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 395–403, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.21512/LC.V12I4.4582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. M. Dembsey, “Closing the Grammarly® Gaps: A Study of Claims and Feedback from an Online Grammar Program on JSTOR,” Writ. Cent. J., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 63–100, 2017, Accessed: May 19, 2022..Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. A. M. Buck, “The Invisible Interface: MS Word in the Writing Center,” Comput. Compos., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 396–415, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPCOM.2008.05.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. T. McGee and P. Ericsson, “The politics of the program: ms word as the invisible grammarian,” Comput. Compos., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 453–470, Dec. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00142-1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. A. Iglesias, L. Moreno, P. Martínez, and R. Calvo, “Evaluating the accessibility of three open-source learning content management systems: A comparative study,” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 320–328, 2014, doi: 10.1002/CAE.20557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. V. Perez, … B. P. G.-B.-… J. of I., and U. 2017, “A system to generate SignWriting for video tracks enhancing accessibility of deaf people,” Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell., vol. 4, no. 6, p. 109, 2017, doi: 10.9781/ijimai.2017.09.002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R. G. Crespo, J. P. Espada, and D. Burgos, “Social4all: Definition of specific adaptations in Web applications to improve accessibility,” Comput. Stand. Interfaces, vol. 48, pp. 1–9, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/J.CSI.2016.04.001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. E. Earl, Crista; Neal, “HTML5 Accessible Video Player-How and Why,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Web for All Conference, 2016, no. article no. 43, doi: 10.1145/2899475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Y. Shibolet, N. Knoller, and H. Koenitz, “A Framework for Classifying and Describing Authoring Tools for Interactive Digital Narrative,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 11318 LNCS, pp. 523–533, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. T. Acosta, P. Acosta-Vargas, L. Salvador-Ullauri, and S. Luján-Mora, “Method for Accessibility Assessment of Online Content Editors,” Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., vol. 721, pp. 538–551, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73450-7_51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. G. Brajnik, Y. Yesilada, and S. Harper, “Is accessibility conformance an elusive property? A study of validity and reliability of WCAG 2.0,” ACM Trans. Access. Comput., vol. 4, no. 2, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1145/2141943.2141946.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. V. L. Hanson and J. T. Richards, “Progress on Website Accessibility?,” in ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), 2013, vol. 7, no. 1, doi: 10.1145/2435215.2435217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Garett, J. Chiu, L. Zhang, and S. D. Young, “A Literature Review: Website Design and User Engagement,” Online J. Commun. media Technol., vol. 6, no. 3, p. 1, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.29333/ojcmt/2556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. R. Abdul, S. Batool, S. U. Rehman, and A. Ali Shahid, “Survey based usability evaluation of MS word,” Proc. - 2010 Int. Conf. User Sci. Eng. i-USEr 2010, pp. 193–198, 2010, doi: 10.1109/IUSER.2010.5716750.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. de Buen Unna, Manual de diseño editorial. Trea, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J. Martínez de Sousa, Ortografía y ortotipografía del español actual. Trea, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J. Martínez de Sousa, Diccionario de bibliología y ciencias afines. Trea, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J. Martínez de Sousa, Manual de edición y autoedición. Pirámide, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Buonocore, Estructura y partes del libro. Buenos Aires: Consejo Nacional de Educación, 1941.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. F. de los Reyes Gómez, “La estructura formal del libro antiguo español,” Paratesto, vol. 7, pp. 9–59, 2010Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. S. (ed. . Abou_Zahra, “How People with Disabilities Use the Web | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) | W3C,” 2017. https://www.w3.org/WAI/people-use-web/ (accessed May 24, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. “W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0: W3C working draft 7 december 2021,” 2021. https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/ (accessed May 24, 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Authoring tools are critical to the accessibility of the documents: Recommendations for word processors, including interaction design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      DSAI '22: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion
      August 2022
      237 pages
      ISBN:9781450398077
      DOI:10.1145/3563137

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 May 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate17of23submissions,74%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)39
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format