Added RAUR reference in complexity section; Combined two following pa…

…ra, dropping the 'as documented elsewhere' that had no referent.

SHA: b33522f
Reason: push, by JaninaSajka

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

index.html

@@ -340,9 +340,9 @@ <h1 id="title" class="title">Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements
 
 	<p>By following established guidance, notably that of <cite>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)</cite> [<cite><a class="bibref" data-link-type="biblio" href="#bib-wcag22" title="Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2">wcag22</a></cite>], designers of collaboration tools can help ensure that their user interfaces are <em>perceivable</em> to and <em>operable</em> by a wide range of users with disabilities. Following the Guidelines also enables user interfaces to be more <em>understandable</em>, and to be <em>robust</em> in their support for a range of user agents and assistive technologies. In addition, broadly applicable guidance on improving accessibility for people with cognitive and learning disabilities has been published in [<cite><a class="bibref" data-link-type="biblio" href="#bib-coga-usable" title="Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities">coga-usable</a></cite>]. However, implementing current guidelines and suggested practices is not sufficient by itself to ensure that the user interface of a collaboration tool can be understood and used efficiently by people with disabilities. Thus, conforming to WCAG may well be insufficient for collaborative environments. For example WCAG does not inform automated interface simplification — a general web accessibility requirement being considered in APA's <a href="https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/adapt/">WAI-Adapt Task Force</a>.</p>
   <p>The collaboration features of these tools are necessarily complex. This can impose significant cognitive demands on many users, not only users with specialized accessibility requirements. This is especially true  for users of screen readers, screen magnification and color contrast assistive technologies, as well as for persons living with various cognitive and learning disabilities. For this reason, the unique cognitive demands established by collaborative content creation applications can impose barriers to access which are addressable, in part, by making appropriate software design and implementation choices. Additional control of cognitive demands can be achieved by using the application and any assistive technologies appropriately in a collaborative setting, and by ensuring that the social context in which the collaboration occurs supports participation by contributors with disabilities (see section <a href="#social" class="sec-ref"><bdi class="secno">1.5 </bdi>Social Considerations</a>).</p>
-        <p>Many users cannot track updates on multiple locations simultaneously, rather, they must view and comprehend the interactive elements of the application's features  sequentially, for example in speech or braille for screen reader users. A screen reader or magnifier used in a collaborative application may well present suggested changes and comments in one section of the screen while the user is reading a document in a word processor. The user may also be expected to be communicating verbally with fellow collaborators (e.g., in a meeting) while undertaking editing tasks or comparing multiple revisions of content. Moreover, in applications supporting real-time collaborative editing, incoming changes made by other contributors may alter the content that the user is reading or editing in real time. These cognitive demands can be exaserbated when one is working with an unfamiliar user interface such as a rarely used <abbr title="Real Time Communications">RTC</abbr> client.</p>
-        <p>Due to the cognitive demands created by collaboration tools in the practical and social contexts in which they are used, strategies for improving accessibility are desirable that extend beyond current <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr> guidance as documented elsewhere.</p>
-	<p>Thus when we talk about collaborative tools we must consider accessibility burdens imposed by their
+        <p>Many users cannot track updates on multiple locations simultaneously, rather, they must view and comprehend the interactive elements of the application's features  sequentially, for example in speech or braille for screen reader users. A screen reader or magnifier used in a collaborative application may well present suggested changes and comments in one section of the screen while the user is reading a document in a word processor. The user may also be expected to be communicating verbally with fellow collaborators (e.g., in a meeting) while undertaking editing tasks or comparing multiple revisions of content. Moreover, in applications supporting real-time collaborative editing, incoming changes made by other contributors may alter the content that the user is reading or editing in real time. These cognitive demands can be exaserbated when one is working with an unfamiliar user interface such as a rarely used <abbr title="Real Time Communications">RTC</abbr> client(See our <abbr title="Real Time Communications">RTC</abbr> Accessibility User Requirements [<cite><a class="bibref" data-link-type="biblio" href="#bib-raur" title="RTC Accessibility User Requirements">RAUR</a></cite>] publication).</p>
+        <p>Due to the cognitive demands created by collaboration tools in the practical and social contexts in which they are used, strategies for improving accessibility are desirable that extend beyond current <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr> guidance.
+Thus when we talk about collaborative tools we must consider accessibility burdens imposed by their
 	concomitant complexity. In truth, collaborative tools are necessarily complex interfaces for all users, and not only persons with various disabilities. The salient point here is that a failure to design to accomodate persons with disabilities appropriately will inevitably prevent their participation in collaborative work. What constitutes challenging complexity for most users will inevitably become an insurmountable barrier for some persons with disabilities.</p>
 
 	<p>A fairly common accessibility failure is the use of arbitrary color to flag edits put forth by different collaborators. However, identifying collaborators only by colorization  violates WCAG Success Criterion 1.4.1 as described below in <a href="#version-control-changes">User Need 11</a>.</p>
@@ -488,6 +488,8 @@ <h1 id="title" class="title">Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements
       <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/"><cite>Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities</cite></a>. Lisa Seeman-Horwitz; Rachael Bradley Montgomery; Steve Lee; Ruoxi Ran.  W3C. 29 April 2021. W3C Working Group Note. URL: <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/">https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/</a>
     </dd><dt id="bib-concurrency-control">[concurrency-control]</dt><dd>
       <cite>Concurrency control in groupware systems</cite>. Clarence A. Ellis; Simon J. Gibbs.  Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. 1989. 
+    </dd><dt id="bib-raur">[RAUR]</dt><dd>
+      <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/raur/"><cite>RTC Accessibility User Requirements</cite></a>. Joshue O'Connor; Janina Sajka; Jason White; Michael Cooper.  W3C. 25 May 2021. W3C Working Group Note. URL: <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/raur/">https://www.w3.org/TR/raur/</a>
     </dd><dt id="bib-wcag22">[wcag22]</dt><dd>
       <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/"><cite>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2</cite></a>. Michael Cooper; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Alastair Campbell; Rachael Bradley Montgomery; Charles Adams.  W3C. 12 December 2024. W3C Recommendation. URL: <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/">https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/</a>
     </dd></dl>