Collaboration tools in the literature

To the RQTF

Following on from my action two weeks ago, below are some literature references that look at UI design for collaboration tools and the pros and cons for desktop look and feel vs tool design optimised for web browser optomisation.

I'd like to acknowledge my staff member Hanna for assisting with this work, notes below.

Scott.




-------

  1.  A Performance Comparative on Most Popular Internet Web Browsers - ScienceDirect<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050922021329>


  *   A 2022 article by Azza Mohamed - Arguing for designing online collaborative tools differently to desktop version.
  *   Reading the abstract, it emphasises the significance of browser performance and online tool design.
  *   I can suggest that if online collaboration tools are designed to be more web-centric, then the features and functionalities that stem from web browsers can be taken advantage of.
  *   This could influence performance positively as we would be moving away from copying the desktop versions.

  *   Slow performance mentioned in the article affects user experience and engagement.
  *   If websites are designed by optimizing their distinct and unique capabilities rather than replicating their online version, then this could minimize poorly optimized websites (slow loading times... Etc.).


  1.  A systematic review of collaborative digital platforms: structuring the domain and research agenda | Review of Managerial Science (springer.com)<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11846-023-00695-0>

  *   A 2023 article also argues for designing online collaborative tools differently to desktop version.
  *   By designing websites differently to the offline versions, we can prioritize ethics and sustainability to enhance the user experience which in turn could bring about a positive impact among individuals.
  *   Highlighting the need to support designing tools that go beyond traditional functionalities.
  *   Design approaches flexible and adaptable to diverse user groups' needs would enhance accessibility and engagement.
  *   By supporting the use of designing tools, will allow room to create inclusive tools as large platforms have criticized replicating platforms to further the exploitation of users/worsening working conditions (e.g. Data privacy, user autonomy, accessibility and inclusivity for people with disabilities as this would have a direct impact on social outcomes.)

  *   Relates to whether online tools like Microsoft Word online should be identical to their desktop versions or be redesigned to use the features of the internet.
  *   The article proposes to make these online tools more collaborative and personalized/user-driven for a more inclusive experience.


  1.  Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts-one goal? On the concept of accessibility-historical, methodological and philosophical aspects | Universal Access in the Information Society (springer.com)<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S10209-014-0358-Z>

  *   Abstract mentions concepts of accessibility (design for all, universal access and inclusive design).
  *   To be accessible to the widest possible audience


  1.  Accessibility of dynamic web applications with emphasis on visually impaired users - Okoye - 2014 - The Journal of Engineering - Wiley Online Library<https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1049/joe.2014.0136>

  *   Highlights the challenges presented by dynamic web pages to users with impairments.
  *   As online tools evolve from static to dynamic interfaces, they can become more challenging/difficult for individuals with visual impairments to navigate the page.
  *   Therefore, we can argue that making online versions like the offline versions can help to maintain consistent experiences for the user.
  *   Can be beneficial for users who are already familiar with the desktop version, this includes individuals with disabilities.
  *   Consistency with online/offline would make the transitions between desktop and online versions easier.


  1.  Possibilities and Limitations of Online Document Tools for Design Collaboration | Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing<https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2998181.2998297>

  *   There are insights available into what online collaboration tools are capable of and where they can fall short (incomplete features... etc.).
  *   Improvements can occur
  *   Mentions that adhering too closely to desktop features could limit the effectiveness of the online tool.


  1.  Full article: Accessibility to digital technology: Virtual barriers, real opportunities (tandfonline.com)<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400435.2021.1945705>

  *   Technology is advancing, but not necessarily digital accessibility.
  *   Stresses the consideration of accessibility as a continuous process and not a one-time feature implementation (I presume the desktop version).
  *   The article mentions the impact of updates and changes made to online versions; they can disrupt existing accessibility features.
  *   This should not negate accessibility.





Dr Scott Hollier
CEO & Co-founder
[Centre for Accessibility Australia logo]<https://www.accessibility.org.au/>
Centre For Accessibility Australia Ltd.
Phone: +61 (0)430 351 909
Email: scott.hollier@accessibility.org.au<mailto:scott.hollier@accessibility.org.au>
Address: Suite 5, Belmont Hub, 213 Wright Street, Cloverdale WA 6105

accessibility.org.au<https://www.accessibility.org.au/>
Subscribe to our newsletter<http://eepurl.com/drA-ib>
[Instagram icon]<https://www.instagram.com/centreforaccessibility/> [Facebook icon] <https://www.facebook.com/centreforaccessibility>  [Twitter icon] <https://twitter.com/centrefora11y>  [LinkedIn icon] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/centreforaccessibility/>

CFA Australia respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners of Country across Australia and pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging