Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference -- 27 Sep 2019

<Sharron> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 27 September 2019

<Sharron> Scribe: Sharron

<shawn> scribe: Shawn

Authoring Tools List

<scribe> scribe: Sharron

Hidde: Thanks for all those who completed the survey, feedback was very good, helpful. I have updated based onwhat we got. The title has been changed a bit and still open to change. Now called Authoring Tools with Accessibility Support
... have added a link to requirments for what makes tools accessible with explanation; improved styling; fixed typos.

<Helen> +q

Hidde: wanted to bring up the case in which you submit a tool and claim no support for a requirement, we may ask for the intent to address it and perhaps a date. Is that something the group supports for us to add?

<shawn> https://wai-authoring-tools.netlify.com/authoring-tools/

Helen: If there is a plan to make something accessible, how will we make the authors accountable?

Hidde: Yes, the question will be if we have to track that and how?

Shadi: They are making a public commitment and it will be their own accountablilty rther than our need to keep track of it.

Kevin: I tend to fall on the side of asking them to show that commitment and maybe help them become more motivated.

Hidde: And you may choose a tool based on the commitment

Shadi: may not choose but talk to the sales rep about the schedule.

Estella: The people that will submit a tool to our list are those who are aware of accessibility and have it in mind. Given that, they are likely to do what they say. But what about tools that are in development, will they be listed as well?

Hidde: Do you mean to see what the cometition is doing?

Estella: Yes, to see where gaps are and what is missing.
... I don't think most are as aware of ATAG requrements as WCAG.

Hide: Yes the list is meant o raise that awareness, to see what is the landscape of current tools in realtion to ATAG.

Estella: For tools in development, it seems relevant to make a public commitment to ATAG requirements.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say add date

Eric: If we do open for that, we should require a date for when they will meet requirements. It is a current problem that features are promised but do not materialize. We should be sure to frame it so they feel a time commitment.

Shadi: If they fail to make the commitment, does that not say something about their overall reliability?

Eric: Yes, that is the point. And if our list says "it is planned" what does it say about our own credibility?

Sharron: +1 to considering Eric's point, in terms of how it impacts WAI credibility.

Eric: So in that sense, I would hesitate to add this since it adds clutter and may not be completely reliability.

Shadi: The question is whether it is useful information or just added noise.

Helen: To Eric's point, I completely agree. People make claims over years and postpone implementation. So I support Eric's part. It may be useful to identifiy any 3rd party evaluaation of the tools. It is not the place of WAI but since it an open process it is subject to abuse, sometimes based in ignorance. My experience is that too many tool mkaers make unjustified claims.
... it is important that WAI remains impartial and yet there is a way to define and document what they have actually accomplished.

<Zakim> Kevin, you wanted to relate to the procurement challenge that little is accessible but products are still needed

Daniel: We have to be knowledgable in accessibility to effectively use the list. You have to be able to undertand what tehy are telling you. I would be sure to make very clear that it is the vendor that is making the claim. In general however, I do not think it is needed and could be misleading.

<estella> If a vendor submits an Authoring Tool which does not comply with an accessibility feature and then in a new release the feature is implemented then the vendor has to resubmit the Authoring Tool again?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say not strong either way. somewhat hesitant about it being worth the added clutter. and to say also can still get it from the vendor, even if not in our list

Kevin: We often need more info than is in the documentation. This could be a way to allow a company to state their overall posiiton on accessibility. That is often helpful to understand.

Shawn: I think that kind of information will have to come from the vendor in any case. I am leaning toward the idea that a "it is planned" statement may not be worth the added complexity.

<Brent> Where do opinions stand on adding a comment field for Planned Support right now? +1 for adding "planned support", -1 for not adding "planned support", 0 for undecided.

<Helen> -1

<Lewis> 0

<Howard> 0

<dmontalvo> -1

<Laura> 0

Brent: quick poll

<Brent> -1

<Kevin> 0

<estella> 0

<mpalmer> 0

Sharron: -1

<yatil> -1 but also happy with group decision

<shawn> -0.25

Brent: Kris Anne had suggested it, was finally neutral about it.

Hidde: It seems we lean toward not including this, Shadi will finally decide. Thanks for the input, it is useful to hear reasons for your positions and much appreciated.

WAI Curricula

Daniel: Thanks for all the review and useful comments. We will start with some FYI and then I have a couple of general questions.
... have added more competencies for both students and instructors for units 4 and 5. Related to specific names for the ideas for assessments. You may have noted the difference in the naming convenetions.
... names such as presentaiton, debate, refelctive journal, etc. Trying to address the academic perspective as well as the technical training activity. Hoping it will allow instructors to develop their own based on this.

Wording for ideas for assessment section

Daniel: We had "Homework ideas" and have changed to Ideas for Assessment which has raised some flags. Assessment may indicate we are trying to give specific ideas for grading or how to grade which we are not trying to do.

Sharron: +1 for finding new wording, not 'assessment'

<estella> +1 to Ideas for Assessment is a standard term in EU guidelines, don't know in US

<yatil> [ Exercises? ]

Daniel: I am open to your ideas and suggestions

<estella> A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A Assessment of learning outcomes Process of appraising knowledge, know-how, skills and/or competences of an individual against predefined criteria (learning expectations, measurement of learning outcomes). Assessment is typically followed by certification. Comment: in the literature, ‘assessment’ generally refers to appraisal of individuals whereas ‘evaluation’ is more frequently used to desc[CUT]

<estella> https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/es/events-and-projects/projects/validation-non-formal-and-informal-learning/european-inventory/european-inventory-glossary#A

<Brent> "knowledge check"

Helen: 'Review knowledge of course' may be a possibility. It is harder to grade a report for example than a mulitple choice test. 'Knowledge check' rather than actual assessment of grading or such.

<Brent> "check for understanding"

Daniel: OK I am seeing what the issue is and appreciate the suggestions. Will reformulate to incorporate the balance.

<estella> 'ideas for evaluation'

Howard: I don't have a problem with the word assessment as long as it is doing that - assessing what the student has learned. Some are assignments rather than assessments. I prefer assessment to homemwork. I think it does not need specifics of how students will be graded. For example the activities in Unit 3 seem to fit well as assessments and I don't have a problem with that word.

Daniel: If we provide these suggestions for assessment, instructors can decide which are more apporpriate for academic or training.

<Kevin> +1 to Howard's comments

Estella: I put in IRC some definitions. Assessment is the word we use in academia in Europe. One of the problems with the word is that it is often associated with certification. Not sure if certification is planned in all environments. An alternative may be evaluation.

Daniel: Recall that the intention is to take this curriculum and build their own course. We are not certifiying but the material could certainly be used as the basis for the certification.

Eric: I thoght of 'exercises' 'learning tasks' etc For me as someone who teaches but is not trained as a teacher, these are very very helpful.

<hdv> +1 to Eric's comment!

Brent: I am thinking along the lines of Howard. Maybe turning the word into a verb: Ideas to Assess Knowledge.

Daniel: Yes the idea is to help instructors verify that students have actually learned the material and understand it in a demonstrable way. Could use Knowledge Check of something like that.
... last call for comment on this?

Shadi: Do we want to take apoll?

Daniel: Ideas for Knowledge Check is my current suggestion for replacement

<dmontalvo> Suggestion: Ideas for knowledge check

<Kevin> -1, preferred Brent's suggestion

<Howard> -1

Suggestion: Ideas to Assess Knowledge

<estella> +1 to second suggestion

<Lewis> +1

<Kevin> +1

<Howard> -1

<Helen> +1

<hdv> +1

<yatil> Ideas to Assess Knowledge slighly better than Knowledge Check, but no strong preference

<Laura> +1

<hdv> > Check Knowledge

<mpalmer> Ways to assess knowledge

Howard: I like Assessment, but prefer Assess Knowledge to Knowledge Check

<mpalmer> No strong preference here

<estella> I see the problem of certification related to assessment

<Kevin> -1 to examples

<Brent> +1 for "Ideas"

Suggestion: Ideas vs Examples

<hdv> 0

<estella> +1 to ideas it is more inspirational

Sharron: 0

<yatil> +1 for Examples, +2 for nothing

<Laura> 0 I agree with Sharron I like "Assessment"

<Howard> 0

<shawn> +0.25 for Ideas over Examples

<yatil> +2 for just Assess Knowledge

Daniel: Noted that consensus seesm to be around "Ideas to Assess Knowledge"

<yatil> … if we can make it clear that those are open ended.

<Helen> 0 for both as missing the word "practical"

Eric: Make it clear that these are not the only ways to assess knowledge.

Daniel: At May's face to face, we had suggested duration of units, for the entire module, etc. Feeling was that the course could be covered in a matter of several hours or could be given across an entire semester. Comments have been submitted that perhaps we need to remove the suggested timings and only enphasize that each unit would take the same amount of time.

<yatil> “Adapt the timing to your course needs.”

Daniel: practially however, it is not likely that each will take the same time. It will depend on the type of course, the student make up, etc. So how do we want to approach it?

<Brent> +1 to Eric (aka yatil), no numbers or estimates

Daniel: How do we feel about approaching the timing fo each unit?

<shawn> Sharron: ... some timing suggestion would be useful and valuable

Daniel: I see that but it could also be constraining.

Estella: I have this concern from the beginning. The timeing and counting of the hours is problematic. A framework that is used to build a course is very different from an actual course. I think some timing should be given. Depending on the setting, more learning outcomes will be possible or expected. In that sense timing is relevant.

Daniel: But if we say seeing how PWD use the web can take 2 hours, it will depend on whether youa re able to have live deoms, etc. Don't want to constrain.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say at least a statement to counter act assumption that the units should be equal or the topics should be equal and to say maybe examples of different timings

Helen: I do not think it is easy to provide even rough timings because of the variability in the time it may take depending on the type of course and focus of the audience.

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/accessibility-training/

<estella> +1 to Shadi

Shadi: If we look at the current material around teaching and learning accessiiblity. We have topics, information outlines, presentation suggestions, etc. We will provide this kind of meta information that will help people make the decsions about timing.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say context/percentages

Eric: Given context, letting people know that it can be varied but could use weight assignemtn or percentages.

<Zakim> Brent, you wanted to say Can throw user off, and Not a course.

<Helen> Priority levels could be used?

Brent: I completely agree with Helen on this. If you put any kind of timings at all it will discourage or confuse someone. I want us to recall that this is *not* a course. Pieces can be pulled out and plugged into different courses designed as they wish and to the audiences they are trying to reach. In that case, the timing does not mean anything to them.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say maybe examples of different timings.. to say at least a statement to counter act assumption that the units should be equal or the topics should be equal

Daniel: If we look at this from a perspective of procurment - I need to buy a training that meets these learning goals. Timing may lead to a pre-judement of what you can expect and be able to pay for. Could lead to misinterpretation or discouragement.

<shawn> [ maybe examples of different timings - e.g., Uni course for developers versus short intro course for new designer hires (collapsed). at least a statement to counter act assumption that the units should be equal or the topics should be equal ]

Shawn: We may want to provide examples of different uses that can impact timing. People will make assumptions about timing based on topics. It will be worth making a sentence or two to address that you will spend different amounts of time for each topic.

Shadi: One disclaimer sentence for the entire curriculum?

Shawn: yes that should be OK, maybe at the module level.

Danile: 3 levels - Overview, Module, Unit. Where should it go?

Shawn: Not sure until see it all put together, but tend to think for sure at Overview, maybe Module, not at teh unit level.

Daniel: My takeaway is that we must address the variability of the timeing overall - courses built from this can take hours, days, week, etc AND the fact that each unit does not have to have the same anount of time

Estella: Yes, I fully agree with this apporach. It is relevant to provide some element of timing. To provide impmentation path that can be modified. It will be relevant to those who want to use this to build courses.

Daniel: Thanks to all for the good input.

Topc: Evaluation Videos

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/Videos_Eval_Scripts_Approval/

Shadi: A survey reamins open to approve the script
... the focus is on the audio, visuals are there to support the spoken words. Illustrative of the message. I know it is hard to imagine from these few descriptive lines but hoping that you can use it to envision what will be presented. Remember that you can start and save a survey.

<shawn> Sharron: I read it aloud. Spoken language different from written langauge.

Brent: Did the same thing. Read it aloud to myself. Sounded good.

Shadi: Now can we look at the visuals? Apologize for the naming, but it was experted by the production company.

<Brent> I did the same thing as Sharron... Read it aloud to myself. Sounded good.

Shadi: Let's look at the human figure icon, which one is preferred?

<mpalmer> 3 and 6 for me as well. Least angular of the set.

Kevin: 3 or 6 is my preference, depending on context.

<estella> +1 to 3 and 6

<Brent> +1 to 3 and 6

<hdv> 0

Shadi: Any concerns with those 3 and 6

<shawn> no concerns with 3 & 6

<yatil> abstains because I didn't find the file in time :-)

<Lewis> I like the rounded "shoulders" of 3 & 6, but not the boxy nature of the body

<Laura> +1 to 3 and 6

<shawn> [ 4 reminded Shawn of HTML 5 logo ]

Shadi: Let's look at Disability icons v2. be sure to choose v2 please
... (shares screen)

<Zakim> Kevin, you wanted to vote for 3 or 6 and to

Kevin: These changes are good. The speech icon is a wee bit too much like I swallowed a wifi. Needs to bring the waves down to a bit smaller.

Sharron +1

<Brent> +1 to voice lines too big.

<yatil> No strong opinions, they are ok.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say generally better. eye is still too strong. dexterity not quite right – I think of "touch", not hand movement.

<mpalmer> +1 to thinking that's touchscreen.

Shawn: Looking at the dexterity, seems to connote touch screen reather than dexterity.

Shadi: But a touch screen is an issue for dexterity.

Shawn: No the issue is that it does not make me think of hand movement but of touch screens

<Laura> +1 to Shawn's comments

<Brent> Eye, the all seeing US Dollar.

<estella> For the eye I think that particularly the pupil is too strong

<shawn> +1 to estella

<Lewis> Is that the pupil, or the iris? (the white area is the iris)

Eric: The icons are OK, at this point it is mostly personal opinion and I think they convey what is needed. Even the touch screen one is fine. There will be subtitles, narration etc, and I just want to warn us about over thinking.

<estella> Actually both thanks Lewis :)

<Lewis> I agree on the iris being too strong/large

Shawn: I think these icons will take on their own life, like the tag line of the Persepctives vidoes.

Eric: If so, we need to develop an icon set by a professional graphics illustrator.

<Lewis> I like Kevin's voice image

<Kevin> +1 to icon language benefiting from professional graphics designer

Shadi: We need to note that Eric is happy with the icons for this purpose. But are you saying that this production compnay may not have the skills to develop icons that are able to be used more widely?

Eric: I have, for a long time, advocated for developing an icon set. There is a catch-22 however if we delay this project for the icons.

<Brent> +1 to everything Eric said. About not waiting, but needing a graphic designer to design a full set that work together.

Sharron: I agree with Eric. This icon set is fine for this limited purpose but if we expect it to be used so braodly, this is not the one.

Laura: I agree with Eric as well. It is trick when icons are adopted and shared immediately. We may want to be cautious.

Shadi: More or less happy with these if they are only used in the video (with the tweaks suggested.) However, if they are to be more widely applied, they need to be improved. Do most people see it this way?

Shawn: We want to keep going on the videos. It will be too bad if we start with these and polishing gets us a different/new set of icons. I am arguing with myself.

Estella: They are great icons for this purpose. If they are to be developed for broader use, there needs to be more research and an actual recommendation for icons that are useful and can be used globally.

Eric: The other graphics are great but these 5 icons can maybe be swapped out, even at the last minute before producing the final video.

<Zakim> yatil, you wanted to say icons can be switched out relatively easily w/ considerations

Shadi: I will need to investigate that "easy" part.

<yatil> +1 Agree with Kevin.

Kevin: I would move forward with this set and in parallel seek out the final set. There would be a lot of value in it and taking our time would be worthwhile.

<mpalmer> +1 agree with Kevin as well

<Brent> I believe making an icon set is going to take a lot of time. Many opinions. Long project. +1 to Kevin.

<shawn> [ I found the "device" image disturbing ]

Shadi: We do need to somehow render a to-do list without communicating the "checklist" Came up with a tiled kind of document. Can understand in context if you read the narrative. Now is the time, we want to start animating soon and I look forward to and appreiciate your input.

Outreach

Brent: PLease do promote the media resource and document what you ahve done
... asking everyone to do at least one way to promote it.

<estella> I have promoted I will added to the wiki

WrapUp

Brent: Will be sending email reminders. Stay on top of W4TW and surveys please

<Brent> me/ iiiiiiiiiiii (birthday candles - probably not enough)

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

27 Sep 2019

Attendees

Contents

Authoring Tools List

WAI Curricula

Wording for ideas for assessment section

Outreach

WrapUp

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output