Outstanding CTAUR Issues

RQTF members,

I'm sensing your frustration over the amount of time this CTAUR feedback process is taking, so perhaps if I document the remaining issues from COGA, I won't need to take up any more time in future meetings?

We have discussed these issues previously, and I know you're not keen to revisit them, but as COGA considers them key issues, I feel I must run them past you. So, the remaining 4 issues are below. As we did in the meeting, please let me know whether RQTF's position on these has changed (or if they have been addressed), and I'll communicate back to COGA (hopefully for the last time!)

GitHub issue #42: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/42   and #43: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/43
Explanation: A suggested requirement to "Provide help" , which included a list of suggestions, such as provide instructions, use images, provide a glossary, clear language etc.

When previously discussed, there were the same concerns about its applicability to collaborative tools. It was suggested these were good points, which are tackled nicely in Content Usable, but don't belong in CTAUR. You discussed the possibility of making edits to the Real-Time  co-editing section and mentioned sort of configuration option to lock a section of a document to avoid unwanted distraction.

GitHub issue #35: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/35  and #36: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/36
Explanation: COGA suggested the following after the existing REQ 5 at the end of “3. Real-Time co-editing”.
User Need X: As a user with a memory impairment, attention impairment, or executive function impairment or as a user with a communication disability who uses symbols, I need to know the purpose of the content so that I know if I am in the right place, and what I am doing, even if I lose attention and focus for a time.
REQ X: Help the author make the topic and connections to other documents is clear. For example, provide automated breadcrumbs showing the drive name and the document title.
Again, when previously discussed,  there were the same concerns about its applicability to collaborative tools. RQTF felt it was general editing advice.

Lisa stressed that this is about the environment providing support in a consistent place to provide this information. Lisa provided additional suggestions of how this could be implemented:

  *
Review a summary of current work history on a project
  *
Allow the user to determine the storage location of the collaboration space.
  *
Allow search through a page, whole document, a group of documents (such as a project or directory).
  *
Allow the user to structure the collaboration space.
  *
Support wayfinding/orientation space within a collaboration tool such as where within the tool they are to complete certain tasks.
     *
The names and locations available within the tool used for a specific group. Example: if there are multiple document libraries within a collaboration space, this makes finding the one related to a project difficult to find.
     *
Upcoming important deadlines and tasks should also be available and easily found. This place needs to be:
        *
Persistent

GitHub issue #33: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/33  and #34: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/34
Explanation: COGA suggested the following after the existing REQ 5 at the end of “3. Real-Time co-editing”.
User Need X: As a user who finds some web sites hard to use and struggles with remembering and following instructions, I sometimes need in-page instructions so that I can do the correct task.
REQ X: Instructions from the author are easy to find. For example, an icon and link to a readme document is always available on the main toolbar.
Again, when previously discussed,  there were the same concerns about its applicability to collaborative tools. RQTF felt it was a good general principle, but not particular to collaboration.

Lisa stressed that this is about the environment providing support in a consistent place to provide this information.

GitHub issue: #37: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/37  #38: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/38   #39: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/39  #40: https://github.com/w3c/ctaur/issues/40
Explanation: COGA suggested the following after the existing REQ 9 at the end of “4. Annotations”.
User Need X: People with cognitive disabilities need to be able to follow comments and replies with becoming overwhelmed with many levels or needing to navigate between the levels can be difficult.
REQ Xa: The structure of comments and conversations are visually Clear. For example, by using icons and different colors to emphasize the different levels of comments.
REQ Xb: Multi levels can easily be expanded or closed.
REQ Xc: The current draft of wording should be easy to see at the top of a thread or in the text.
This was accepted by RQTF as necessary, all good examples, but there were concerns about the applicability of this to all collaborative spaces.
RQTF took an action to find appropriate examples for these.


Many thanks,


David Swallow
Principal UX Consultant


TPG Interactive
https://www.tpgi.com<https://www.tpgi.com/>


A Vispero Company
https://www.vispero.com<https://www.vispero.com/>

--

This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.