The Publication

• Collaboration Tools Accessibility User Requirements.
• Published by the W3C’s Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group.
• Developed by the APA Working Group’s Research Questions Task Force.
• Status: W3C Working Group Note.

Examples of the Collaboration Tools that we Address

• Collaborative, Web-based, office applications (e.g., word processors, spreadsheets, etc.).
• Collaborative, Web-based, software development environments.
• Collaborative, Web-based, media creation environments (e.g., a music editor).
• Web-based version control systems (e.g., for source code or document development).

How are Collaboration Tools Defined?

• The document is inclusive: any tool possessing any of the features for which guidance is provided is relevant, and the corresponding aspects of the document should be consulted.
• This approach avoids overly restrictive definitions of what collaboration tools are of interest.
• This document treats collaborative content or software development. It is thus centrally concerned with collaborative editing and revision tasks.

Distinctive Features of Collaboration Tools

• Real-time, interactive, collaborative editing.
• Annotations, e.g., comments inserted by collaborating authors.
• Version control (e.g., change tracking, revision comparison, integration of changes made by different authors).
• Access controls that determine who can read and edit the content.

Objectives of the W3C Note

• To amplify and extend existing accessibility guidance in connection with collaboration tools.
• To identify accessibility issues and approaches to solving them in the design and implementation of collaborative features.

Challenges for Accessibility Introduced by Collaboration Tools

• Cognitive complexity, particularly in real-time, interactive creation and editing situations engaging multiple authors.
• Providing adequate support for assistive technologies in the applications themselves.
• The additional demands of using a collaboration tool while communicating with collaborators (e.g., in a meeting).
• Cognitive complexity associated with collaboration tools can affect anyone, but it is particularly pertinent to users with learning or cognitive disabilities, and those who have assistive technologies such as screen readers and screen magnifiers.
• Further difficulties occur if the user is unfamiliar with the collaboration tool. Someone else may have chosen it. Some collaborators may never have used it before. The task may require it to be used immediately (with little or no familiarization opportunity).

A Twofold Solution: Shaping the User Interface and the Social Context

• These challenges can only be partly solved by the design and implementation of the tools.
• The collaborators may benefit greatly from agreeing on practices that establish an inclusive and mutually supportive work environment.
• We recognize both the technical and social aspects that need to be combined to solve the accessibility-related challenges.

Identifying Themes

• Instead of summarizing each section of the document, I propose to discuss themes that emerge in the guidance offered.
• This provides a framework for approaching a detailed reading.
• The following is not a comprehensive overview.

Supporting Assistive Technologies and Effective User Interaction

Assistive technologies, particularly screen readers, need information about collaborative features. In addition, the user interface must be presented clearly and appropriately both visually and nonvisually. Assistive technology-related expectations include representation of the following.

• In real-time editing: the presence of co-authors in a session and the changes they introduce.
• Comments applied, for example, to text in a word processor document, or lines of code in a software development environment.
• Suggested changes, for example insertions and deletions in a word processor, or insertions and deletions shown in comparing two versions of a text.
• Notifications, for example, regarding the permissions applied to content that the user is reading or wishing to edit.

Clarifying the User Interface

• The structure of comments organized as threads of discussion should also be appropriately indicated in the visual presentation and to assistive technologies.
• The permissions applicable to content that the user is accessing (e.g., read-only state) should be prominently presented in the user interface.

Giving the User Control of Collaboration-Related Information

• Allowing the user to reduce distractions by temporarily suppressing collaboration-related information presented in the user interface.
• Examples: suppressing presentation of comments, suggested changes, or inessential notifications.
• Example: allowing the user to choose whether to read a text in its original version, in its revised version, or with the changes annotated as insertions and deletions.
• Control over what collaboration-related information is presented should be available both to the visual interface and the screen reader interface.

Summarizing Collaboration-Related Information

• Collaboration tools should allow summaries of changes to be provided (e.g., change logs) to assist users in understanding the purpose and effect of revisions made by a co-author.
• It should be possible to summarize comment threads.
• Automatically generated summaries of changes or comments should be supported, but summaries created by artificial intelligence-based tools should be identified as such, and should be subject to the possibility of manual editing.
• Notifications sent to the user about issues or changes should be available, if requested, in summary form, with a link to more details.

General User Interface Guidance

This guidance further addresses the cognitive demands of collaborative environments.

• Following established user interface conventions and design patterns.
• Supporting accessibility-related features of user agents, operating systems, and assistive technologies.
• Example: supporting existing screen reader features for reviewing comments and changes.
• Making collaborative features available via an Application Programming Interface (API) so that users can choose their own tools, and collaborators are not all required to interact with the same user interface.
• Example: some version control tools have multiple user interfaces - a Web application, a command line interface, a desktop application, and integrated tools within text editors. These alternatives are made possible by APIs.

Acknowledgments

• Thank you to participants in the Research Questions Task Force for detailed work on this document and for extensive discussion of comments.
• The Learning and Cognitive Disabilities Accessibility Task Force provided detailed comments on multiple drafts.