RE: Collaboration Tools, section 6.3

Apologies - I have not yet had a chance to review the thread below, but please do not wait for me.
Also, Microsoft is launching a feature for collaborative documents related to parts of our discussion from the other day. I am sharing here for awareness:
https://insider.microsoft365.com/ja-jp/blog/catch-up-on-changes-and-comments-from-others


Thank you,
Jennie

Jennie Delisi, MA, CPWA
Enterprise IT Governance Coordinator | Customer Service Management
Minnesota IT Services | Partners in Performance
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
O: 651-201-1135
Information Technology for Minnesota Government | mn.gov/mnit




-----Original Message-----
From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 7:51 AM
To: Jason J.G. White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Cc: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>; COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>; public-rqtf@w3.org; Lisa Seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>; Matthew Atkinson <m.atkinson@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: Collaboration Tools, section 6.3

This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center.

________________________________

Jason:

Please go ahead with that annotation and cross link. Making things very clear is always a good thing, imo.

Matthew and I also discussed COGA's feedback on our planning call just now. We realized that there are different buckets for COGA's comments, not all of which are the CTAUR document. So, the COGA comments are
either:

a.)     Appropriate for the CTAUR Note draft

b.)     A W3C process problem we should document and manage through WAI
and W3M.

c.)     Actual bugs to be filed on github.

Clearly, b and c are out of scope for RQTF and the CTAUR. However, that doesn't mean APA shouldn't help follow up on them.

Best,
Janina

Jason White writes:
>
> On 1/4/24 05:57, Janina Sajka wrote:
> > In this specific instance Jason is referring to the section of CTAUR
> > that specifically addresses accessibility of change history and of
> > revision summaries. From RQTF's point of view this would be a
> > description of barriers encountered and some suggested approaches to
> > ameliorate those.
>
> That's exactly right, and the reference in my e-mail message was to
> the corresponding discussion of change histories at last week's meeting.
>
> Of course, providing human-authored descriptions/summaries of changes
> depends on cooperation of the collaborators rather than on the
> technology itself. If desired, we could clarify this by adding a
> sentence in section 6.3, and a cross-reference to section 1.5, which
> discusses the need to meeting the needs of collaborators with
> disabilities by using the tools appropriately.
>
> > In this specific instance there's no meaningful distinction between
> > synchronous tools (like Google Docs) and asynchronous tools (like git).
> >
> > So, no, we don't mention github specifically, but it is very much in
> > scope when it comes to identifying accessibility issues and proposed
> > solutions.
> Yes, and it may also be remarked that Git (and tools based on it) make
> provision for writing messages that describe/summarize each change in
> the history of a project. Reading the commit log shows all of those messages.
> Thus I think Git is better at this than some other tools such as
> office applications, which generally don't let you annotate document
> revisions with explanations of changes.

--

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka


The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures     http://www.w3.org/wai/apa


Linux Foundation Fellow
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/

Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2024 13:25:48 UTC