From 947c773377bd90ed9e8174afd2c4f280a0adf4f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Janina Sajka Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:31:35 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Removed one WCAG version reference; made cfhanges to UN 7 and 8. --- index.html | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index 3f961fc..24c4894 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@

Collaboration tools and accessibility

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. The salient point here is that a failure to design to accomodate persons with disabilities appropriately will inevitably prevent their participation in collaborative work. What constitutes challenging complexity for most users will inevitably become an insurmountable barrier for some persons with disabilities.

-

A fairly common accessibility failure 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.

+

A fairly common accessibility failure is the use of arbitrary color to flag edits put forth by different collaborators. However, identifying collaborators only by colorization violates WCAG Success Criterion 1.4.1 as described below in User Need 11.

Social Considerations

@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@

Real-Time co-editing

See Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 [[wcag22]], success criterion 1.3.1.