Moved complexity example to rarely used RTC client

index.html

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ <h3>Defining User needs</h3>
 		            <h3>Collaboration tools and accessibility</h3>
 	<p>By following established guidance, notably that of <cite>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)</cite> [[wcag22]], 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 [[coga-usable]]. 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 &mdash; a general web accessibility requirement being considered in APA&apos;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"></a>).</p>
-        <p>Many users cannot track updates on multiple locations simultaneously, rather, they must view and comprehend the interactive elements of the application&apos;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 particularly challenging if a person is working with a user interface that is unfamiliar, whether it be an application or an assistive technology.</p>
+        <p>Many users cannot track updates on multiple locations simultaneously, rather, they must view and comprehend the interactive elements of the application&apos;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 RTC 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 W3C guidance as documented elsewhere.</p>
 	<p>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>
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ <h3>Summarizations</h3>
       <h2>Notifications and Messages</h2>
       <p>Collaboration tools may send notifications to the user for a variety of reasons. For example, a user may be notified if a collaborator asynchronously submits changes to a document or project, or adds a comment. These notifications may be delivered via operating system facilities, or by a messaging service, such as e-mail or an instant message protocol. Moreover, the collaboration tool may support commenting, issue tracking, or other forms of interaction via external messaging. These optional capabilities are addressed in the following user needs and system requirements.</p>
       <ul>
-        <li><strong>User Need 15:</strong> Users who are easily distracted need to receive only notifications that are crucially important to their collaborative activity.</li>
+        <li><strong>User Need 15:</strong> Users who are easily distracted or overwhelmed need to receive only notifications that are crucially important to their collaborative activity.</li>
         <li><strong>REQ 15:</strong> Ensure that users can choose which types of notification are delivered, and which are suppressed, according to the nature of the information conveyed.</li>
         <li><strong>User Need 16:</strong> Users for whom reading text is slow or difficult need information that is important to the task at hand to be clearly distinguished and prioritized.</li>
         <li><strong>REQ 16A:</strong> Provide a mode of operation in which notifications are short, and links to more detailed information are included. In this mode, full details are not provided in the notification. For example, a user could be notified that a comment or issue has been created,  with the full text being available only via a link rather than as part of the notificational message itself.</li>