W3C

- DRAFT -

Education and Outreach Working Group Teleconference

15 Nov 2019

Attendees

Present
Brent, Daniel, Estella, Helen, Kevin, Laura, Mark, Shadi, Sharron, Shawn, Sylvie, dmontalvo
Regrets
Vicki, Lewis, Andrew, Amanda, Denis, KrisAnne
Chair
Brent
Scribe
Sharron

Contents


<scribe> Scribe: Sharron

WAI Curricula

Daniel: Thanks to all who have reviewed and entered issues, especially related to the first, opening page. Brent I saw your comments and have addressed them. I have deployed a preview to use in the extended review we announced last week. So you can see how the changes look in that preview.
... also have agreed to keep the current functionality of the module table. If it is an issue for people, we can come back to that later on.

<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/117

Daniel: We have the module and within each module we have units. We are also developing a MOOC for W3C and in their nomenclature, they refer to modules for sections that we call unit. We are considering how to align with that system. We could remove our current use to do that. So what we now call unit would be module. We will then look for another name for what we are now calling module.

Shadi: where and how often do we use module?

Daniel: Module is used in the titles of each section and is used in the text of both overview pages.
... Unit is now used in the title for each subtopic and in the Intro to Web Accessiiblity in the outline of the curriculum content

Estella: You said now is units, modules, and curricula is the overarching term?
... are you planning to make a trainer's guide or something similar?

Daniel: Yes that is planned for those who need explanations for how to use the materials and what our terms are.

Estella: Will the materials developed include expert level instruction?

Daniel: This one is a basic intro, in this first module, we are trying to address many roles. For each role we will develop at least one module for each of the roles at an intermediate and perhaps an advanced section(s) as needed for each role.

Estella: OK< we are having almost the exact same discussion about naming the sections in the curricula we are developing as well.

Daniel: Do you use module and unit as we do here?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say strong +1 for alignment with W3Cx course. maybe -0.5 for replacing "Module" with "Curricula" . Can we swap "Units" and "Modules"?

Estella: Actually, we use module for the higher level section and units within those and learning outcomes within that.

<Helen> +1 to Shawn :)

Shawn: Using module in alignment with W3C is important and I strongly support it. Using curricula in palce of module has too much potential for confusion.

Sharron: +1

<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask about 'Course Outline' or something like

Kevin: Replaying what I think we are trying to solve. Is the challenge that the W3CX uses courses and module and we are trying to align with that?
... in that case, since we cannot call it a 'course' - can we call it a course outline?

Sharron: I like that idea +1 to 'course outline'

<shawn> hummm -- "course outline" might work? /me thinks...

Kevin: I agree with flipping them around but explaining what a unit is could be an issue.

Daniel: Yes it could work since course is qualified by 'outline'

Shadi: Just switching around the terms, unit seems odd as higher in the organizational hierarchy.

<shawn> ? proposal -- Module->Course Outline , Unit->Module

<eoncins> I don't agree to get rid of units

Estella: I don't understand the need to get rid of unit maybe because I do not understand the structure.

Daniel: Because it is weird to have units being higher than modules

Estella: I agree with that but then how would it be?

Daniel: Title would be Course Outline -> Module -> Topics -> Learning Outcomes

<eoncins> I would call it Trainer's Guide instead of Course Outline maybe?

Shadi: I don't feel strongly but want to raise the thought that course outline identifies that it is not a course. I wonder however if it will more strongly suggest that instructors must use it in that way and not be as flexible with the materials to use parts or change the order.

<shawn> Sharron: was thinking in the trainers guide, we make it very clear how you can use it = flexible

Daniel: There are plans to be explicit in telling people to feel free to use the material flexibly and to integrate it into other courses.

<shawn> [ Shawn notes that there will be multiple "Course Outlines" e.g., Course Outline 1: Introduction to Web Accessibility, Course Outline: Web Accessibility for Developers - Intermediate ...

Brent: I agree with what Kevin said about using curricula but don't quite accept course outline as the title. Module seems movable by its name. Unit seems more linear. I like the naming we have because it seems more flexible. Course outline may sound too proscriptive. May not be the right term.

Daniel: What happens if we don't call it anything at all. Just use the name of the curricula section. The titles of the sections caould be stand alone
... it will be a sesne that we guide them using the narrative and the navigation but not telling them how to use it, just presenting content for them to adapt in what ever way they need.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to look at big picture titles and support no terminology

Shawn: And looking forward to what we plan to do, it seems to work well. This one is "Introduction to Accessibility," what will the next one be?

Daniel: Anyone strongly opposed to not using any of these words?

Shadi: I fully agree that we can keep the titles fairly neutral. But if we need to refer to it somehow, what do we call it. Take a look at ??? Don't we need a handle of some sort for referring to them?

Daniel: Like the conversation we had about the word "resource" we could have links to the materials we want to reference.

<kevin> -1 to part

Kevin: A few things - what is the context of use of the term? where will it be used?

<shadi> [[This resource provides a set of role-based curricula for web accessibility]]

Daniel: First it will be used as we use it now as a title but Shadi is referring to how it is referenced externally and how do we explain it.

Kevin: We are already using curricula then so why not just leave it at that? We have a way to refer to the elements now, in fact we overload the terminolgy in some places. There are many places where we do use curricula already.
... the context of use should define what term we use. What is the actual level of risk that people won't use it flexibly? Why tie ourselves in knots to solve a problem that we may not actually have?

Daniel: I don't see it as much of an issue once we are inside the materials. We may need the handle externally to point people to it.

<dmontalvo> q/

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to note that we can have "in Curricula on Web Accessibility" under the H1 (like in https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/planning/) and to say then maybe the "handle"

Daniel: We have agreed to use module as the W3CX is doing, as the sub-topics within the general currculum. Now need only to think of how to call the thing itself.

Estella: Need to define what is a module and what is a unit as soon as possible. We have different levels, different roles. Too much of a puzzle to keep the elements straight.

Danielle: Parts of the curriculm can be referenced.

<shawn> -0.5 to part

Estella: What do you mean by parts?

Daniel: We agree that we will use module as the W3Cx is using it, is that right?
... can we take that decision and table the rest?

<shawn> Sharron: agree use module in alignment. maybe table other question. acknoweldge Kevin - maybe trying to solve problem we don't have?

<Helen> +1 to Sharron!

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say that we can have "in Curricula on Web Accessibility" under the H1 (like in https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/planning/) and to say then maybe the "handle"

Shawn: Remind folks that we have a current structure in which any pages that are subpages to another resource are called out in the naming structure. Would say <h1."Intro to Web Accessibility" and benath it "in Web Accessibility Curricula"
... if it works for you to not call it anything, let's see what it looks like in place.

<eoncins> +1 to Kevin

<eoncins> +1 to Brent sorry

Brent: I completely agree with kevin and Sharron. In the long run it may not be an issue but feel strongly not to use the word course even if modified.
... second part is to ask about the MOOC development for W3Cx - if you name something 'module' in the MOOC that is not aligned with how we name it, with that cause confusion?

Shadi: The suggestion is to follow suit with the W3Cx naming convention using "module' in the ay they do.

<eoncins> From our experience with MOOCs calling a Module or a Unit in a MOOC should not be much a problem

Brent: So in the MOOC if you choose to call something a module that in the curricula is called a unit, will it be confusing?

Shadi: The intent of the MOOC will be an example of how to implement the curricula so there can be an audience that will see both and they might be confused if we do that. But we have made the decision to align with them so that has been ecided.

<Helen> do we have a glossary for the terms used?

Daniel: No glossary yet, but we maight have one in the extra or supporting materials

<Helen> thanks Daniel

Supporting materials

<dmontalvo> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula/Supporting_Materials/

Daniel: These are meant to provide support to those who wish to build courses from the materials, who may want to take parts of the resources to integrate into their courses, or procureemnt folks who may want to require certain eleemnts in training they are looking for.
... I have developed some requirements and identified audiences here. As well I have tried to define use cases here. Some primary and secondary audiences and use cases.
... and while I found what may be tertiary audiences, I think we can asknowledge them but not try to develop materials specifically for them but to be aware they may be looking and may want to develop messages to guide them to resources that are actually made for them and be more helpful.
... I then made the proposal based on these to link from the main curricula page to two supporting pages. First would be a page devoted to providing guidance for using it. As well a link to the support for the secondary audience. Will include things like formats, duration, etc. Second would be a page with definition of terms, logistics, availability, potential for certifications based on the

course, etc.

<eoncins> In page 1 I would include ECTVS (for vocational) also because it affects certification. And in page 2 I would also add guided or non-guided training specially for the online courses

scribe: address questions of reasonable accomodation, in-person/online, would like to ask your thoughts. Are the use cases realistic, complete, have I left anything out?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about Comparing Course Offerings motivation

Shawn: Most of us have not read this, not sure anyone is ready to discuss right now. I do have a question however.For the comparing course offerings goal you spoke of - what is the level of priority for that and why?

<shawn> me wondring if it is worth a whole page of info for them? ] /me wondring if it is worth a whole page of info for them? ]

<shawn> ah, European training requirements

Daniel: I know we cannot have a deep discussion hopoing for first impressions. Primary audience is not someone who would select or compare courses. Nevertheless there are those who will be trying to buy courses and will have the need to meet training requirements. I can see HR professionals who may need to know what specifics they would want to have included in courses that they are seeking to

provide to their staff.

Daniel: We will not compare course but may provide a list of elelemtns that those who purchase training may want to validate is present.

Estella: As far as the audience you cite an 'accessibility expert,' what is the definition?

Shadi: The point here is not how the expertise is defined but rather to identify and support integrating accessiiblity into another related course.

<kevin> Would 'specialist' be a better term?

Estella: Accessibility is something that you build up from a previous background but does not have a recognized credential so I am a bit skeptical about the term.

Shadi: We have examples of people who are experinced but need course content vs those who are expert trainers but not skilled in accessiiblity - we can redefine the way it is used if it is a concern.

Daniel: Focused here on someone who is more of a trainer than an accessiiblity SME but also want to consdier the accessibility practitioner who has not doen much training.

<eoncins> well with EN301 549 there is also a huge need in the EU

Shadi: There are not European requirements driving this necessarily but there is a need both in Europe, the US and around the world for people to be sure they get accurate, reliable training. Daniel clearly identified the procurement and HR people as a secondary target audience. It is an opportunity for WAI to provide global leadership and consistancy so I want to emphasize my belief that there

is a potential multifier effect that can have great impact.

Shadi: I would encourage us to think about it in that context.

Daniel: So please take some time this week to review and provide your thoughts about this apporach.

Brent: I did ask people to provide "Monkey Review" Of the first page, can we discuss?

<dmontalvo> https://www.w3.org/WAI/curricula

Brent: any comments before we close this topic?

Curriculum first page

Daniel: I asked for these comments at the beginning of this discussion and several have put those in GitHUb. Others?

Shawn: The page has been here but we have not reviewed and we want to publish the first iteration very soon and so here is your chance to comment before first publication. This is a good time to do it.
... instead of having three levels of bullets, I suggest only one

<dmontalvo> ack Sharron ack kevi

<eoncins> +1 to Shawn

Kevin: I agree with Shawn about the levels of bullets and the tables seem to require horizontal scrolling which is problematic.
... another issue is the placeholders and ??? - will they be resolved before publication?

Daniel: yes some are names that we have but others are future titles that may not look like this going forward. I do think and see your point in avoiding these signifiers and make it clear in text rather than the symbols. We will avoid using these marks when published.

Kevin: What's going to actually be published in that case?

Daniel: We will publish the content that is already linked will be published
... the other contents that are not linked will not be published

Kevin: So if this is a monkey, followed by a butterfly review, can we see the content that will actually be published?

<shawn> +1 to Monkey review should not have had the @@s and ???s

Sharron: When should we look at it?

Daniel: We expect to have a clean copy on Monday and will open a survey at that time.

Laura: About that table, it looks like the whole page is broken from a responsive design. You can use CSS to make it fully responsive. I can help you fix it if you would like.

Shawn: I will send you the link to the issue. There is a larger issue.

Brent: We kind of didn't do this review in the way we probably should have. We asked for Monkey review but folks are used to having a survey with link and ability to comment in depth. Are we OK with doing the the Approval to Publish and Monkey review at the same time?

Shawn: For various reasons, it will be great to announce the first iteration of this on December 3. We want EO to be comfortable that we will publish a first iteration with the understanding that Daniel will still have dedicated time to do that, to polish and revise.

<kevin> +1 for what Shawn said

Brent: Agree with what Sharron asked for - a clean copy to review even with the understanding that we will continue to revise.
... is everyone else OK with that?

Sharron: +1

<eoncins> +1

<Brent> +1 to indicate what is expected in the future too.

Shadi: The table has an issue inherited from the WAI webiste and would love a solution (@Laura and Eric) I do expect this particular table to disappear. At this time, since we have only one, we need it but when there are more developed curricula they willbe in the navigation.

Brent: Thanks, any further comments?

Videos

Shadi: We have completed drafts of all five v2 of the first one v1 of the other four.

<Brent> Please add me to help with the music

Shadi: today, we mostly want to talk about the music, have gotten several tracks to sample. This si a request for who might like to opt in to review the music tracks and provide music tracks (like a sub group). Any volunteers?

<Sylvie> Sylvie would like

<eoncins> I do also

<Brent> I do

Brent: Do we send invitation to the full group?

Sharron: Yes I will send

WrapUP

Brent: Schedule time to review the videos and Monday will be a curricula survey opening on Monday The 18th through Tuesday the 26th.
... we want all the input for those two
... appreciate all the input for today, have a good weekend.

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/11/15 15:36:50 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/then/them/
Succeeded: s/decisiona dn table/decision and table/
Succeeded: s/ me tells Hellen - not yet but I beleive one is planned//
Succeeded: s/ [ /me wondring if it is worth a whole page of info for them? ] /
Succeeded: s/Monky/Monkey/
Succeeded: s/isussiona nd several/discussion and several/
Succeeded: s/tehy/they/
Succeeded: s/should have not had the/should not have had the/
Succeeded: s/a a larger/ a larger/
Default Present: Brent, Daniel, Estella, Helen, Kevin, Laura, Mark, Shadi, Sharron, Shawn, Sylvie, dmontalvo

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Brent, Daniel, Estella, Helen, Kevin, Laura, Mark, Shahi, Sharron, Shawn)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Brent, Daniel, Estella, Helen, Kevin, Laura, Mark, Shadi, Sharron, Shawn

Present: Brent Daniel Estella Helen Kevin Laura Mark Shadi Sharron Shawn Sylvie dmontalvo
Regrets: Vicki Lewis Andrew Amanda Denis KrisAnne
Found Scribe: Sharron
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron
Found Date: 15 Nov 2019
People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]