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

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

index.html

@@ -78,9 +78,9 @@ <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 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
+        <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(See our RTC Accessibility User Requirements [[RAUR]] 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 W3C 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>