-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
/
index.html
222 lines (215 loc) · 34.5 KB
/
index.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements</title>
<script src="https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c" class="remove" defer></script>
<script src="respec-config.js" class="remove"></script>
<script src="biblio.js" class="remove" defer></script>
</head>
<body>
<section id="abstract">
<p>This document outlines various accessibility-related user needs and requirements for both synchronous and asynchronous web-based collaboration tools based on various collaborative engagement scenarios. These tools typically include one or more specific collaborative features such as
content editing by multiple authors, support for comments annotations, and revision control in real-time synchronous sessions, or asynchronously. Asynchronous tools are more commonly known as revision control systems rather than collaboration tools though their functionality is otherwise very similar. The Cloud-based office application suites from Google and Microsoft are well-known examples of synchronous, real-time collaboration tools, though they also support asynchronous collaboration. Web tools built on git are well-known examples of asynchronous collaboration tools.</p>
<p>The accessibility user needs and requirements described in this document may be implemented in the collaboration tool itself, or in an assistive technology application such as a screen reader or screen magnifier. Widely used desktop applications such as word processors and spread sheets also commonly support collaboration features. We take a holistic approach to give foremost priority to the user's perspective, leading to the identification of features and solutions that may be implemented by different components of the software stack involved in performing a collaborative task.</p>
<p>Although the user needs and requirements identified in this document <em>are non-normative</em>, they may influence the development of future accessibility guidelines, normative technical specifications, or features of collaboration tools and assistive technologies. They are relevant to software developers who contribute to the collaborative experience.</p>
</section>
<section id="sotd">
</section>
<section id="intro">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<section id="collaboration-tools">
<h3>What are collaboration tools?</h3>
<p>For the purposes of this document, a <dfn>collaboration tool</dfn> is any software that supports features designed to facilitate the interactive creation, editing or annotation of content by multiple contributors, whether working in simultaneous collaboration or asynchronously. Examples of collaboration tools include</p>
<ul>
<li>A Web-based text editor or word processor that enables multiple authors to edit content simultaneously while discussing their edits during a Real Time Communications (<abbr title="Real Time
Communications">RTC</abbr>) teleconference, with each contributor's changes being integrated into the resulting text and propagated in real time to the collaborators.</li>
<li>A Web-based text editor or word processor that enables multiple authors to edit content asynchronously over many days and week, with each contributor's
changes being integrated into the resulting text and propagated on next load to the collaborators.</li><li>A tool that enables Web pages to be annotated with comments that are automatically made available to other users of the annotation service who access the same pages with suitable software. The software may be included in a user agent, or it may be supplied as an extension.</li>
<li>An Integrated Development Environment (<abbr title="Integrated development Environment">IDE</abbr>) that supports the collaborative editing of program source code in real time (or asynchronously).</li>
<li>A wiki that supports version control, for example by enabling authors to revert to prior versions of a page or to view the differences between two versions.</li>
<li>A midi or audio editing application that allows real-time synchronous audio content editing, or asynchronous content editing. Collaborators hear edited content on demand during a teleconference editing session or on content refresh when editing asynchronously.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="distinctive-features">
<h3>Our Scope: Distinctive features of collaboration tools</h3>
<p>This document focuses on features unique to collaboration tools, rather than features which they share with other Web applications. Most especially this document avoids discussion of features applicable to software in general. However, any software that provides one or more of the features enumerated here may benefit from the user needs and corresponding requirements elaborated in the sections that follow.</p>
<p>The distinctive capabilities of collaboration tools are illustrated by the examples described in the section: <a href="#collaboration-tools"></a>. It is important to consider how these features are manifested in the tool's user interface. From this perspective, the distinguishing features may be described as follows.</p>
<dl>
<dt>Real-time and asynchronous co-editing</dt>
<dd>A feature enabling multiple authors to edit the same content simultaneously or over days, weeks months, and years. In synchronous co-editing, the changes introduced by different authors in real-time are combined almost immediately, using algorithms such as operational transformation [[concurrency-control]]. The combined changes are then made immediately visible in all of the participating authors' editing sessions. The effect is that each author may perceive, in real time,
<ul>
<li>Edits proposed by collaborators,</li>
<li>The location of other editors' focus within content.</li>
</ul>
Asynchronous edits, on the other hand, are made visible on document reload.</dd>
<dt>Annotation of content with comments</dt>
<dd>Some tools enable users to associate comments with parts of the content that is being read or edited. In systems such as word processors, replying to comments is supported, allowing threads of discussion to be associated with parts of a document.</dd>
<dt>Comparing revisions</dt>
<dd>Some systems can display the differences between revisions of content for purposes of comparison.</dd>
<dt>Suggested changes</dt>
<dd>Some word processors can show changes (insertions, deletions and formatting-related modifications) made by collaborators, which an editor can choose to accept or reject. These revisions are sometimes referred to as <dfn>suggested changes</dfn> or as <dfn>tracked changes</dfn>. Each change may be accompanied by metadata, for example the identity of the author who made the change, and a time stamp.</dd>
<dt>Access controls</dt>
<dd>Some collaborative environments support <em>access controls</em>, allowing restrictions to be imposed on modification of part or all of the content. Permission to modify content may be granted on a granular basis to specific individuals or to groups of users. For example, in a collaborative tool for creating fillable forms, some users may only be allowed to change the values of input fields (i.e., to complete a form), whereas others may be free to edit any aspect of the document, including the addition, deletion and rearrangement of form fields.</dd>
</dl>
<p>Collaboration tools differ widely in the nature of content that may be edited. They also differ widely in the user interfaces presented to users. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>Word processors typically provide a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG"><q>what you see is what you get</q> (<abbr title="what you see is what you get">WYSIWYG</abbr>)</a> interface based on a rendered view of the content.</li>
<li>Editors designed for source code or markup language text development do not provide a rendered view. In these applications,, indentation and syntax highlighting may be the only visual cues provided to the structure of the code or markup available in the editing environment.</li>
<li>In collaborative video editors, candidate video renditions may be played in side by side windows for purposes of comparison and editing decisioning.</li>
<li>By their very nature, audio alternatives presented in music or sound editing environments must be played sequentially, and their distinctions remembered by the user in the comparison and decisioning process.</li>
</ul>
<p>As the preceding cases suggest, collaboration tools are not restricted by the kind of content that may be edited. Thus, tools that support editing of static images, mathematical notation, or other content types are also within the scope of this document. However, only collaboration-related aspects of any content editing environment are addressed here. Accessibility issues particular to creating and editing various types of content are not considered in this document.</p>
<p>Nevertheless it is important that collaborative tools support the full range of editing functions associated with making web content accessible. Among others this would include the ability to add
headings, provide alternative text for images and add captions to videos.</p>
<p>Some collaboration tools support accessibility by mapping unique keyboard commands. Some also organize their feature options in unique menus or uniquely located menus. We prefer collaboration tools that utilize standard menu organization and typical keyboard commands now well known to users from the stand-alone desktop environment. Standard controls require far less learning
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.</p>
</section>
<section id="need-definition">
<h3>Defining User needs</h3>
<p>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 quickly become cognitively burdensome when performed during a working teleconference session. Working with comments and suggested changes becomes more cognitively demanding when 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 significantly 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.'</p>
</section>
<section id="collab-a11y">
<h3>Collaboration tools and accessibility</h3>
<p>By following established guidance, notably that of <cite>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)</cite> [[wcag22]], designers of collaboration tools can help ensure that their user interfaces are <em>perceivable</em> to and <em>operable</em> by a wide range of users with disabilities. Following the Guidelines also enables user interfaces to be more <em>understandable</em>, and to be <em>robust</em> in their support for a range of user agents and assistive technologies. In addition, broadly applicable guidance 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 <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/adapt/">WAI-Adapt Task Force</a>.</p>
<p>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 <a href="#social"></a>).</p>
<p>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 an in-person or RTC 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 exaserbated when one is working with an unfamiliar user interface such as a rarely used RTC client(See our RTC Accessibility User Requirements [[RAUR]] publication).</p>
<p>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 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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="#version-control-changes">User Need 11</a>.</p>
</section>
<section id="social">
<h2>Social Considerations</h2>
<p>Collaborative tools should support all identified accessibility features in order to provide comprehensive accessibility. However, it is unlikely all features will be needed by any individual collaborative team effort. We assume persons with disabilities are brought into collaborative teams because of the contributions they are expected to make in the project. Teams are encouraged to focus on accommodating the specific accessibility needs of participating team members in order to operate most efficiently and productively.</p>
</section>
<section id="scope">
<h3>Scope and Applicability of this Document</h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p>If a tool implements one or more of the distinctive features described in section <a href="#distinctive-features"></a>, 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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="#annotations"></a> would be relevant to the tool.</p>
</section>
</section>
<section id="synchronous">
<h2>Real-Time co-editing</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 1:</strong> Users need to be able to discover the presence of collaborators who are reading or editing the content.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 1:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which <em>status messages</em> alert the user whenever a collaborator opens or closes an interactive session involving the same content that the user is accessing (e.g., the same document).</li>
</ul>
<p class="note">WCAG requires that status messages be made available to assistive technologies. See <cite>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2</cite> [[wcag22]], success criterion 4.1.3, and the associated definition of <em>status message</em>.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 2:</strong> An assistive technology user needs to be informed in real time of changes to the content being made by collaborators.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 2:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which status messages inform the assistive technology user of insertions, deletions or formatting-related changes made by collaborators as they occur. Limiting these notifications to a content span currently focused by the user is also an advisable option.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 3:</strong> Users with learning or cognitive disabilities and assistive technology users need the ability to read or edit without being distracted or overwhelmed by status messages.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 3:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which status messages informing the user of the presence or activities of collaborators are suppressed. This may be achieved by allowing the user selectively to enable and disable specific types of status message, to messages relating to a specific span of content, or all such messages.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 4:</strong> An assistive technology user needs the ability to track changes introduced by a specific collaborator as they are made.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 4:</strong> Provide a function that moves and tracks user's
focus to the location where a specific collaborator
is editing. If there are multiple active collaborators, then multiple
such commands, or a menu of active content editors, should be available.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 5:</strong> Users with vision, cognitive or
physical disabilities need to be able to edit content without
the distraction of contemperaneous edits being introduced by other collaborators.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 5A:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which changes made by collaborators are not displayed while any individual collaborator is editing and include some notification semaphore to indicate at least one collaborator is editing, or</li>
<li><strong>REQ 5B:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which the component of the content that the user is editing (e.g., the paragraph, section, semantic unit of source code, or graphical object) can only be changed by one collaborator at a time, preventing others from making simultaneous modifications to the same component and flag this status to all collaborators while the lock is active.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="annotations">
<h2>Annotations</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 6:</strong> An assistive technology user needs to be informed of the presence of annotations along with the specific part of the content being annotated, such as words, sentences or paragraphs. This also applies to lines of code in a software development project.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 6:</strong> Ensure that information about annotations is conveyed to assistive technologies, together with the boundaries of the text to which the annotation applies, along with any metadata associated with the annotation, and any comment text.</li>
</ul>
<p class="note">See <cite>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2</cite> [[wcag22]], success criterion 1.3.1.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 7:</strong> Assistive technology users need to be able to review content without being overwhelmed or distracted by information about annotations.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 7:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which information about annotations is suppressed. This mode might be activated by an application setting, such as a toggle switch controlling the presence or absence of annotations.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 8:</strong> An assistive technology user needs to be able to navigate between annotations (from previous to next) and to obtain a navigable list of annotations (e.g., a list of comments in a word processor document or on a Web page), in order to read and respond to annotations efficiently.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 8:</strong> Provide navigation and content viewing functions and a means of obtaining a navigable list of all the annotations associated with the content.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 9:</strong> Assistive technology users need to be able to control the amount of information presented about annotations to prevent becoming overwhelmed while they are reading, navigating and editing content.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 9:</strong> Provide options for the user to limit the amount of detail presented as each annotation is encountered. For example, it should be possible to suppress presentation of metadata, or replies to comments, or to alert the user only to the presence of the annotation without presenting the metadata or comment text.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 10:</strong> Assistive technology users and users with learning or cognitive disabilities sometimes need support in understanding and navigating annotations that represent comments organized as <em>threads</em> of conversation.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 10A:</strong> Ensure that the structure of comment threads is unambiguously presented in the user interface, both via visual cues such as icons and color changes, and to assistive technologies.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 10B:</strong> Enable threads to be expanded or collapsed by the user, and ensure the expanded or collapsed state is disclosed to assistive technologies.</li>
</ul>
<p class="note">REQ 8 may be valuable to users in general, and it should be considered for inclusion as a feature of collaboration tools themselves.</p>
</section>
<section>
<h2>Version control features</h2>
<section id="version-control-changes">
<h3>Suggested changes</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 11:</strong> Assistive technology users need to be able to read the text with information included about <em>suggested changes</em> (i.e., insertions, deletions or formatting modifications proposed by collaborators). Assistive technology users and those with learning or cognitive disabilities also need to be able to read content being edited without the distraction of insertion and deletion annotations.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 11A:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which
details of insertions, deletions and formatting changes are appropriately presented
as collaborators read the content. These details should include time stamps and identification of who made the change together with any annotations the editor may have provided by way of explanation.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 11B:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which users can read the unmodified content, or if they prefer, the revised content with suggested changes applied, without any annotations indicating revisions.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 12:</strong>All users, and particularly u sers with color blindness need to be able to distinguish insertions, deletions, and unaltered text effectively.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 12:</strong> Provide distinctions over and beyond just color to identify inserted and deleted text as required by WCAG 2.2 <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/use-of-color">Success Criterion 1.4.1: Use of Color</a>.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="diff">
<h3>Presenting Differences Between Revisions</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 13:</strong> Users need to be able to compare revisions in meaningful units (words, sentences, lines, blocks of code, a side-by-side presentation of two graphic renderings, etc.), according to the nature of the content, to maximize comprehension.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 13:</strong> Provide at least one mode (and preferably several) that present differences in a content appropriate manner.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="summation">
<h3>Summarizations</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 14:</strong> Users with learning or cognitive disabilities, and users of assistive technologies sometimes need support in identifying revisions and understanding their effects.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 14A:</strong> Provide, with timestamp and author indication, a mechanism to identify and summarize a series of changes to some portion of content.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 14B:</strong> Provide, with timestamp and author indication, a mechanism to identify and summarize individual comment threads.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 14C:</strong> Provide, if technically feasible, a mechanism allowing any user automatically to generate a summary for themselves of content or of a comment thread at any time. Project editors should have the ability to revise and commit a summary to the content in collaborative development as a permanent feature of the collaborative effort.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 14d:</strong> Whenever <abbr title="artificial intelligence">AI</abbr> rather than human authoring is used to generate summaries, indicate that the summary was auto-generated, but also provide the ability for an editor to edit or replace the auto-generated summary. Indicate any special circumstances, e.g. <q>An auto-generated plain language summary.</q></li>
</ul>
</section>
</section>
<section id="notify">
<h2>Notifications and Messages</h2>
<p>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.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 15:</strong> Users who are easily distracted or overwhelmed need to receive only notifications that are crucially important to their collaborative activity.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 15:</strong> Ensure that users can choose which types of notification are delivered, and which are suppressed, according to the nature of the information conveyed.</li>
<li><strong>User Need 16:</strong> Users for whom reading text is slow or difficult need information that is important to the task at hand to be clearly distinguished and prioritized.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 16A:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which notifications are short, and links to more detailed information are included. In this mode, full details are not provided in the notification. For example, a user could be notified that a comment or issue has been created, with the full text being available only via a link rather than as part of the notificational message itself.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 16B:</strong> If e-mail or a similar medium is used to deliver notifications, ensure that the <em>subject</em> of the message clearly specifies the project, document or issue title relevant to the notification.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 16C:</strong> 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 <q>threads</q> of discussion, all delivered in a single summary message to the user.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="access-control">
<h2>Access Controls</h2>
<p>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 <em>read-only</em> 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.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 17:</strong> Users of assistive technologies and those with cognitive or learning disabilities need to be able to ascertain whether they have permission to edit content, in whole or in part.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 17:</strong> Ensure that the applicable permission (e.g., read-only state) affecting content currently in focus is prominently presented in the user interface, and that it is made available to assistive technologies.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 18:</strong> Users, including those with learning or cognitive disabilities and those with assistive technologies, need to be informed of changes made to access permissions that take effect during an editing session.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 18:</strong> If an access control affecting the content currently in focus is changed during an editing session, for example by a collaborator, a notification of the change is presented in the user interface, and made available to assistive technologies.</li>
</ul>
<p class="note"><cite>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2</cite> [[wcag22]] should be consulted for guidance on ensuring that the user interface for configuring access controls meets appropriate accessibility requirements.</p>
</section>
<section id="conventions">
<h2>General Guidance on Implementing Accessibility Features of Collaborative Environments</h2>
<p>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.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>User Need 19:</strong> Users with learning or cognitive disabilities or who use assistive technologies need to learn and use collaboration tools efficiently.
</li>
<li><strong>REQ 19A:</strong> In implementing collaboration features, follow established user interface conventions and design patterns. For example, use conventional terminology, labels, or icons for functionality that may be familiar to users.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 19B:</strong> Support the accessibility-related features of the user's operating system, user agent, and assistive technology. For example, some assistive technologies, such as screen readers, have features designed specifically for reading comments and suggested changes in textual content, which should be supported instead of defining application-specific functionality or keyboard commands that accomplish the same purpose.</li>
<li><strong>REQ 19C:</strong>Make collaborative features available via an <abbr title="application programming interface">API</abbr> to allow interoperability with tools with which the user may already be familiar, and which may better satisfy a person's specific accessibility-related needs. For example, a revision control system could interoperate via an <abbr>API</abbr> with a user's chosen text editor or integrated development environment.</li>
</ul>
<aside class="note">
<p>Provision of an <abbr>API</abbr> does not diminish the importance of ensuring that user interfaces provided by the application satisfy accessibility requirements. Nor is REQ 19C applicable to all collaborative environments. For example, some applications are highly dependent on editing functions specific to the tool itself, and should not be expected to interoperate with external editors.</p>
<p>Note that learning an unfamiliar user interface is difficult or impossible for some people with learning or cognitive disabilities. Consequently, offering interoperability via an <abbr>API</abbr> with tools that are already familiar to the user can remove otherwise insurmountable barriers to access in such cases.</p>
</aside>
</section>
<section class="appendix">
<h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
<p>The Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group gratefully acknowledges the vision and multi-year effort of our <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Main_Page">Research Questions Task Force (RQTF)</a> in developing this publication. In addition we wish to acknowledge the contributions of all who provided comments and suggestions as this publication moved through multiple revisions. We especially thank our colleagues in the <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/cognitive/">Cognitive and Learning Disabilities (COGA)</a> Task Force for their particular diligence providing comments and suggestions. Without COGA's help this publication would have been a far less formidable document.</p>
</section>
</body>
</html>