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.
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- J. Treviranus, “Authoring Tools,” in Web accessibility, Springer, London, 2008, pp. 127–138.Google ScholarCross Ref
- “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1.” https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ (accessed May 27, 2022).Google Scholar
- “Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0,” 2015. https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/ (accessed May 24, 2022).Google Scholar
- ETSI, “ETSI EN 301 549 - V3.2.1 - Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services,” 2021. .Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- “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 Scholar
- “HTML Standard,” 2022. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/ (accessed May 19, 2022).Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- I. D. P. F. (IDPF), “EPUB Accessibility 1.0,” 2017. http://idpf.org/epub/a11y/ (accessed May 27, 2022).Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- J. de Buen Unna, Manual de diseño editorial. Trea, 2020.Google Scholar
- J. Martínez de Sousa, Ortografía y ortotipografía del español actual. Trea, 2014.Google Scholar
- J. Martínez de Sousa, Diccionario de bibliología y ciencias afines. Trea, 2004.Google Scholar
- J. Martínez de Sousa, Manual de edición y autoedición. Pirámide, 2005.Google Scholar
- D. Buonocore, Estructura y partes del libro. Buenos Aires: Consejo Nacional de Educación, 1941.Google Scholar
- F. de los Reyes Gómez, “La estructura formal del libro antiguo español,” Paratesto, vol. 7, pp. 9–59, 2010Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- “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 Scholar
Index Terms
- Authoring tools are critical to the accessibility of the documents: Recommendations for word processors, including interaction design
Recommendations
Interdependent components of web accessibility
W4A '05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A)Increasingly, the Web is providing unprecedented access to information and interaction for people with disabilities. However, the Web will not be equally accessible, allowing people with disabilities to access and contribute to the Web, until:• ...
Evaluation of authoring tools under ATAG and WCAG recommendations
AbstractAuthoring tools are software programs that allow users to create learning content, lessons, and courses, usually to be used in virtual learning environments. These tools are a reasonable choice for novice users, as they use pre-programmed elements ...
Web accessibility for older users: successes and opportunities (keynote)
W4A '09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibililty (W4A)Web accessibility for older users -- are we there yet? We understand many of the needs, however there are some gaps in our knowledge and much integration and adoption still required.
The Web Accessibility Initiative: Ageing Education and Harmonisation (...
Comments