Re: Outstanding CTAUR Issues

Hi David:

Thanks for this summary email. If we're showing frustration in RQTF,
it's because so much time is required to process COGA issues. Seems
we've been at them for months.

Nevertheless, I think we're coming to a good place and taking on COGA's
comments has made CTAUR a stronger document!

I'm including some comments below in line on the specific remaining issues you
describe.

David Swallow writes:
> 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.
> 

Personal view ...

There's nothing unique about providing help in collaborative tooling.
This is in the class of comments that apply to software in general, not
to collab specifically.

nevertheless, if this is addressed in Content Usable in a way that is
more illustrative than what WCAG might contain, a "such as" addition to
the reference to Content Usable might be in order, i.e. as part of an
expansion of that sentence to point to one or more illustrations of what
Content Usable provides.

> 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:
> 
>   *
Are we talking about a collaborative editing situation where the
currently open document may be one of several available documents hosted
in one or more folders? Is that what's meant here? If so, I think we can
add this, perhaps to Sec. 9.

> Review a summary of current work history on a project
>   *

I'm working to say more regarding summaries.

> Allow the user to determine the storage location of the collaboration space.
>   *

Again, if this is about a corpus of documents being edited, anyone of
which may be open in a group editing session, that helps clarify what we
might need to say.

> Allow search through a page, whole document, a group of documents (such as a project or directory).
>   *

Ditto. Are we talking about multiple docs in an editing project?

> 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:
>         *


Is this perhaps a request for todo list management in a CT?

> 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.
> 

I think I understand the value here, but still suspect it's not CT specific.
Isn't this a Content Usable item, not a CT one?

> 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.
> 


I believe we've actually addressed this in the various requirements
1-10. I would be happy to see more "such as" examples in there, though.

Colorization is an example we have, but we do not have anything talking
about clearly visible "where am I" labeling. How would that be
articulated in the context of these reqs?

Thanks again, David!
Janina

> 
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 

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 Friday, 19 April 2024 17:43:17 UTC