Re: Collaboration Tools, section 6.3

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.