From 17ae6fea10c5e4f8eae5a787b5a92eb726ed2f04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jasonjgw Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 11:56:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Merge pull request #66 from w3c/cognitive-demands SHA: 73cc33d624a2cf4debd4971b75686c7b5824809e Reason: push, by jasonjgw Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> --- index.html | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index 8ac6075..55f35f3 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -149,15 +149,15 @@ "group": "apa", "github": "w3c/ctaur", "maxTocLevel": 4, - "publishISODate": "2024-03-27T00:00:00.000Z", - "generatedSubtitle": "W3C Editor's Draft 27 March 2024" + "publishISODate": "2024-03-29T00:00:00.000Z", + "generatedSubtitle": "W3C Editor's Draft 29 March 2024" }

Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements

-

W3C Editor's Draft

+

W3C Editor's Draft

More details about this document
@@ -259,11 +259,11 @@

Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements

APA encourages review and feedback from all accessibility perspectives to ensure future drafts are as comprehensive as possible.

- -

1. Introduction

+

1. Introduction

1.1 What are collaboration tools?

@@ -314,19 +314,20 @@

Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements from the user, whereas specific accessibility modes with custom keyboard commands, and with menus that shift their location on screen pose significantly steep learning challenges to most users with disabilities, not just users with cognitive and learning disabilities.

-

1.3 Scope and Applicability of this Document

+

1.3 Scope and Applicability of this Document

Accessibility-related guidance provided in this document is applicable to a wide variety of tools. No unnecessary restriction is placed on the types of Web-based software to which it may reasonably be applied.

If a tool implements one or more of the distinctive features described in section 1.2 Distinctive features of collaboration tools, then the guidance in this document which addresses each such supported feature is relevant and applicable to the tool. Thus, the scope of the document includes any tool implemented using Web technologies that implements at least one of the distinctive features for which guidance is offered in the sections that follow.

For example, an annotation tool supporting the association of shared comments with selected text in Web pages would offer only a single feature described in this document. For this reason, only section Annotations would be relevant to the tool.

-

1.4 Collaboration tools and accessibility

+

1.4 Collaboration tools and accessibility

By following established guidance, notably that of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) [wcag22], designers of collaboration tools can help ensure that their user interfaces are perceivable to and operable by a wide range of users with disabilities. Following the Guidelines also enables user interfaces to be more understandable, and to be robust in their support for a range of user agents and assistive technologies. In addition, guidance of a general nature on improving accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities has been published in [coga-usable]. However, implementing current guidelines and suggested practices is not sufficient by itself to ensure that the user interface of a collaboration tool can be understood and used efficiently by people with disabilities. Thus, conforming to WCAG may well be insufficient for collaborative environments. For example WCAG does not inform automated interface simplification — a general web accessibility requirement being considered in APA's WAI-Adapt Task Force.

-

The collaboration features of these tools are necessarily complex. This can impose significant cognitive demands on many users, not only users with specialized accessibility requirements. This is especially true for users of screen readers, screen magnification and color contrast assistive technologies, as well as for persons living with various cognitive and learning disabilities. Many users cannot track updates on multiple locations simultaneously, Rather, they must view and comprehend the interactive elements of the application's features sequentially, for example in speech or braille for screen reader users. A screen reader or magnifier used in a collaborative application may well present suggested changes and comments in one section of the screen while the user is reading a document in a word processor. The user may also be expected to be communicating verbally with fellow collaborators (e.g., in a meeting) while undertaking editing tasks. Moreover, at any time, incoming changes made by collaborators may alter the text that the user is reading or editing in real time.

-

Due to the cognitive demands created by collaboration tools in the practical and social contexts in which they are used, strategies for improving accessibility are desirable that extend beyond current W3C guidance.

-

Thus when we talk about collaborative tools we necessarily must consider accessibility burdens imposed by their - concomitant complexity. In truth collaborative tools are necessarily complex interfaces for all users, and not only persons with various disabilities. A fairly common example is the use of arbitrary color to flag edits put forth by different collaborators. However, identifying collaborators only by colorization violates WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.4.1 as described below in User Need 11.

+

The collaboration features of these tools are necessarily complex. This can impose significant cognitive demands on many users, not only users with specialized accessibility requirements. This is especially true for users of screen readers, screen magnification and color contrast assistive technologies, as well as for persons living with various cognitive and learning disabilities. For this reason, the unique cognitive demands established by collaborative content creation applications can impose barriers to access which are addressable, in part, by making appropriate software design and implementation choices. Additional control of cognitive demands can be achieved by using the application and any assistive technologies appropriately in a collaborative setting, and by ensuring that the social context in which the collaboration occurs supports participation by contributors with disabilities (see section 1.5 Social Considerations).

+

Many users cannot track updates on multiple locations simultaneously, rather, they must view and comprehend the interactive elements of the application's features sequentially, for example in speech or braille for screen reader users. A screen reader or magnifier used in a collaborative application may well present suggested changes and comments in one section of the screen while the user is reading a document in a word processor. The user may also be expected to be communicating verbally with fellow collaborators (e.g., in a meeting) while undertaking editing tasks or comparing multiple revisions of content. Moreover, in applications supporting real-time collaborative editing, incoming changes made by other contributors may alter the content that the user is reading or editing in real time. These cognitive demands can be particularly challenging if a person is working with a user interface that is unfamiliar, whether it be an application or an assistive technology.

+

Due to the cognitive demands created by collaboration tools in the practical and social contexts in which they are used, strategies for improving accessibility are desirable that extend beyond current W3C guidance as documented elsewhere.

+

Thus when we talk about collaborative tools we must consider accessibility burdens imposed by their + concomitant complexity. In truth, collaborative tools are necessarily complex interfaces for all users, and not only persons with various disabilities. A fairly common example is the use of arbitrary color to flag edits put forth by different collaborators. However, identifying collaborators only by colorization violates WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.4.1 as described below in User Need 11.

1.5 Social Considerations

@@ -351,11 +352,11 @@

Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements

-

3. User need definition

+

3. User need definition

Specific user needs are frequently defined both by task required to achieve a particular goal and also by environmental conditions. Context matters. For example, the cognitive demands imposed by interacting with the collaboration-related features of an application depend not only on the needs and capabilities of the user, including the possible presence of assistive technology, but also on the context. A collaborative task that the user can perform independently while working alone in a distraction-free environment may become cognitively burdensome if performed in a situation such as a meeting. Working with comments and suggested changes in a document may become more cognitively demanding if other authors are simultaneously editing the same content, and the user needs to be aware of their activities (e.g., to avoid introducing conflicting changes) while still performing the editing task. The use of different input types and methods, such as speech input or switch-based input, can affect the amount of time required to enter and edit text, as well as the user's ability to respond to potentially disruptive changes introduced by collaborators.'

-

4. Real-Time co-editing

+

4. Real-Time co-editing

  • User Need 1: Users need to be able to discover the presence of collaborators who are reading or editing the content.
    • @@ -412,14 +413,14 @@

    Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements
  • REQ 12: Use distinctions other than color to identify inserted and deleted text in the visual interface as required by WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.4.1: Use of Color.

-

6.2 Presenting Differences Between Revisions

+

6.2 Presenting Differences Between Revisions

  • User Need 13: Users need to be able to compare revisions in meaningful units (words, sentences, lines, etc.), according to the nature of the content, to maximize comprehension.
  • REQ 13: Present differences in a manner that is appropriate to the type of content. For example, software source code might be presented with line-by-line differences, whereas natural language documents might be presented with differences shown word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence.
-

6.3 Summarizing Effect of Revisions

+

6.3 Summarizing Effect of Revisions

  • User Need 14: Users with learning or cognitive disabilities, and users of assistive technologies sometimes need support in identifying revisions and understanding their effects.
    • @@ -428,7 +429,7 @@

    Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements
    Note

    Although it may be useful to support automatic summary generation by technologies such as large language models, the state of the art as of the time of publication suggests implementers should exercise caution. Inaccurate summaries of changes may be worse for users than their absence. For this reason, summaries written by human authors are generally preferable to those authored by automated large language models.

-

7. Notifications and Messages

+

7. Notifications and Messages

Collaboration tools may send notifications to the user for a variety of reasons. For example, a user may be notified if a collaborator asynchronously submits changes to a document or project, or adds a comment. These notifications may be delivered via operating system facilities, or by a messaging service, such as e-mail or an instant message protocol. Moreover, the collaboration tool may support commenting, issue tracking, or other forms of interaction via external messaging. These optional capabilities are addressed in the following user needs and system requirements.

    @@ -440,7 +441,7 @@

    Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements
  • REQ 16C: If multiple notifications are provided together (e.g., in a single message), ensure that the user can sort the notifications according to reasonable preferences, for example, most recent first, or oldest first. This is applicable, for example, to a series of comments organized as threads of discussion, all delivered in a single summary message to the user.

-

8. Access Controls

+

8. Access Controls

A collaborative environment may provide access controls to restrict the modification of content to specified individuals or groups of users. Moreover, access controls may be applied to the entire content, as in a document which is marked as read-only in a text editor or office application, or they may restrict editing to designated parts. Depending on the capabilities of the application, permissions may be changed by an authorized user during a collaborative editing session.

    @@ -453,7 +454,7 @@

    Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements

Note

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 [wcag22] should be consulted for guidance on ensuring that the user interface for configuring access controls meets appropriate accessibility requirements.

-

9. General Guidance on Implementing Accessibility Features of Collaborative Environments

+

9. General Guidance on Implementing Accessibility Features of Collaborative Environments

To facilitate effective collaboration, applications should be designed to respect conventions of user interface design that are likely to be expected by users, including those who have disabilities.