Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

02 Oct 2020


Daniel, Hidde, Sharron, Brent, Laura, Shawn, Kevin, Vicki, Jason, Shadi, Crystal, Howard, KrisAnne
Vicki, shadi


<Crystal> Good Morning

<JasonMcKee> good morning everyone

<shawn> scribe:Vicki


Brent: Daniel will provide a summary of curricula and supporting material, we have the Curricula survey (monkey review)

<Daniel> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula#Links

<Daniel> https://deploy-preview-119--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/how-to-use-these-curricula/

Daniel: This a framework to help people build courses. Developing Accessible content will be on the survey for this week and addresses mainly developers. We need to look at the requirements analysis and have expanded it a bit more, adding different scenarios, use cases for a variety of audiences and needs.
... The page is structured in 3 sections, with scenarios, indicators for procurers and HR professionals. We have been working with the Task Force prioritizing the roles, also looking at different depth levels, less prominent is the delivery medium (the latter is dependent on the supplier of the courses). Would like to know your reaction on this page. Is the structure good, is something missing there?

Brent: Let us know your initial thoughts and comments...

Kevin: Some initial thoughts: if this is the "how to use" the Curricula, does the page answer this question? I'm not sure if the resource says clearly enough what the resource does and how to use it.

Daniel: Good point. We want to provide the modules and roles, but probably after we can add something.

Kevin: Yes, maybe, there is just something which needs to be added to answer that question specifically.

<Daniel> https://deploy-preview-119--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/

Shadi: There is some information on the overall page. I do agree we could move some from the overall page to this one. Another way is to think about if we change the heading. What we have on the overview page (link above), if we move it to this page, would it work for you?

Kevin: I guess it could.

Daniel: Maybe we can move some of the content.

Kevin: I don't think it needs much but there is some content which is necessary to answer the question "how to use" the Curricula.

Daniel: Any other thoughts?
... Let's ask another more specific question. We've talked about the use cases before (different training needs for course developer, HR professionals etc.), my question is "Is there any other use case that you can think of which is missing here"?

Jason: Is there a certification offered for the courses developed?

Daniel: This is a framework. We are helping others build the courses. This is not a course in itself. We are not certifying or claiming certification. These are guidelines for people who are creating courses.
... For certification, it is true there might be people offering courses who might offer certification but a question is should we mention some explanation about this on these page?

Jason: I was wondering if a certification is offered. In my company, we are building a course for professional web testers, and we often get questions about what certification is offered. Perhaps, on the client side of people developing such courses, there might be this question and as I'm just getting this / I'm new so I was just wondering.

Daniel: So, may be use cases for complying to a certain policy and others who do not need to comply. I think it's good to explore.

Crystal: We actually produce some courses in this regard for specific groups, e.g. accessibility testers but we go through the programme of Homeland Security. We do course development targetted at staff members working on content according to standards they are trying to reach. Does this cover those type of cases?

Daniel: I'm not very familiar with this particular certification standard you are mentioning. We are focusing on the content rather than how the content, or people should be certified. We could explore this greater depth on how to approach this.

Shadi: We work with Trusted Tester . One of the curricula we are currently reviewing is the developer curricula. We are also looking for other curricula, e.g. designers, testers. Combining what you both are saying, it seems we are focusing a lot on the courses. You could use the curricula to create certification courses. Maybe this is the missing part which we need to consider these use cases. A scenario would be what if someone wants to create a cer[CUT]
... programme, but we could provide perhaps some different types of accreditation, we could elaborate it a bit more to see how these curricula fit with certification programmes. In this way, you could possibly compare your courses, fill the gaps, or use the curricula as guidance. So, this could be another use case.

<shawn> +1 for it being a *secondary* audience / use case (not primary)

Daniel: Definitely, what is suggested is to look into it and explore further.

Brent: Shadi, I really like where you are going with that. When we talked about the curricula and kind of tried to do some marketing around the W3C course, a couple of times, I'd get the question "If I look through this curriculum, or if I take the course, will it take certify me for the AA.. exam?" I couldn't really reply but this was continually a question. As "X" or "Y" company has courses but they cost money. However, if I went through the cou[CUT]

<Crystal> Agreed

Brent: by W3C, which is free, would it suffice for me to pass the exam. So, in fact, is there any way to provide some background and how this course might help with certification.

Shadi: Yes, there are 2 points: one to understand could be reference point to be able to compare different certifications or courses. The other part is actually get these mappings, the different programs, the courses, which specific topics they teach and this way you could actually compare, i.e. I need to do these modules to get that certificate. I am familiar with project management comparisons and this curricula could, as well, but it needs some [CUT]

Daniel: Yes, we need to expand and add this to the supporting material. Probably, we may need to talk with these certificate providers if they want to engage or find some way.

Shadi: The mapping is huge work to be honest.

Brent: Is what we are talking about out of scope, additional scope or can it be considered within scope. If out of scope, should we be adding it now?

Shadi: Looking at the requirements analysis, in my view, right now there is very little focus on certification, so this would be an expansion of scope, a slight one. I don't see it as a big difference. So, it would be adding. We need to decide now if we want to add it. I saw that it might be a secondary audience.

Daniel: Yes, it would be an expansion, but I think it could be achievable.

Brent: From what I'm hearing, it is slightly out of scope, but it seems to be necessary or valued from the few who have discussed this far.

Kevin: I think this is tricky. We would have to say then, for an accreditation part, this is what W3C is saying. Do we want to go in that direction?

<brentb> Sharron: +1 to Kevin

<Crystal> +1 to Shadi

Shadi: I would phrase it differently. Here is the curricula for developers, and these are the competencies, and it is up to the courses to define. We could say these are the competences of each role. A common use case will be teaching IT students, which will be a mix of designer and developer. It will be more a mix. We need to be clear that these are not one-to-one mappings. Your argument makes more the case that it needs to be explained.

<shadi> +1 to kevin

Kevin: Yes, we need to explain that these could be used to provide guidance on how to develop the courses and be clear (right now it is not clear).
... when you go into certification, it is tricky.

Daniel: These are the competencies that we outline here and then maybe map to some existing ones. Well, it is for future work. I understand that we should expand on this.

Brent: Does this need to be defined how we are going to approach the scope of the certification explanation, what it is going to do and what it is not going to do before we start adding information to the page?

Daniel: We may need to tweak the use cases we have now. Maybe we need to add something for professionals who create course certification, particularly in the third section. And we may add some sub-heading with some hints on how to map.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to speak of specific use cases raised during the call :-)

Shadi: I'm thinking of something simpler. Just now we had 2 use cases: we are developing an inhouse program, how does the curricula relate to these, and we use this external certification, how do the curricula help us?

Howard: I'm just thinking of how it will be implemented or worded. It is a little complicated. Are we going to say that these are the components you will use to map up to IAAP? I'm just wondering if there are any thoughts on how this will be relayed?

Daniel: I need to study this further. I understand the danger if we start mapping. We can't be sure that the courses resulting from these modules will comply or produce certification.

Howard: I'm just wondering if someone uses one of the courses, thinks whether this is a preparation for a course, or exam? And where to take the course? Do we provide any pointers to where the courses are developed?

Daniel: I would stick to these competencies are used for a certification programme but going beyond this, it becomes very complicated.

<shawn> [ Shawn thought that we did have as a possible future deliverable a list of courses that use this curricula ]

Brent: As co-chair, I think we need to get a really clear understanding what we are trying to accomplish by going into this, what should be said, what should not be said. Going to Kevin's original example, we don't step into something which might seem like an endorsement. We need to be very clear before we move forward with this.

Sharron: I agree. So many people are interested in certification these days so we need to be very clear how this relates.

Shadi: Let me try to bring some clarity. Shawn thought (in IRC) that she thought we had a collection relating to certification. I think we need a paragraph or two how these curricula relate to certification. It would be a partial answer to Brent's question (how does this course map to xyz), it would be partial in that it would provide some guidance as you could look at the competencies required by a course program and a comparison could be made.
... This is the slight expansion to add some explanation how these curricula relate to certification. Future work: it would be good to have a list of courses and certifications provided. The vendors would self-declare which topics they teach, and the certification. It would be done in a vendor-neutral way, i.e. based on a mapping to the curriculum.

Brent: This is clearer. Jason/Crystal - what Shadi has laid out, does this fulfill the need touching on the need to relate to certification. Kevin - does this address your concern that we are not overstepping, i.e. how it relates to certification.

Crystal: I agree it would be beneficial to add the vendor-neutral, I think it would be good to have what is available for certification in the different areas.

Jason: It is clear for me. I understand both sides (also W3C side). If there is some certification which we can allude to, then, I can see it is a benefit to the audience we need to serve. I also understand that it gets complicated. I think if we focus on the competencies and how they are of value to the client, I'd be happy.

Kevin: Yes, I'm happy with your approach Shadi.

Shawn: I though that we had talked about listing courses that follow this curricula but I am less comfortable with certification. I am a little cautious about this. But it is future work. I just want to note this.

Shadi: Yes, right now we are just discussing the current work and the explanation.

Brent: It seems that everyone is in favor of the "Scope tweak". Any objection to them moving forward on that front?

<Howard> no objection here

<krisannekinney> no objection here

<shawn> no objection here

Brent: Not hearing any objection. Back to the initial questions, any other comments around this rough concept draft? Any pieces missing or could be added for Daniel?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say maybe "Terms Used in these Pages" -> "Structure and Terms"

Shawn: When I read "terms used", I think if we changed the words to "structure and terms".

<shadi> +1 to shawn

Daniel: Yes, I'll change that.

Howard: This may seem petty but looking at the terms, you have curriculum and I'm wondering if the items should be structured differently (? not sure I got this right Brent?). Second, are we moving over stuff from the overall page?

<shadi> qq+

Daniel: We will move some parts over but it won't be copy/paste, we need to look into this. Concerning the strucutre, when we were structuring the page, we had nested levels, one nesting. I understand your point and I could look into that.

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to react to Howard

Shadi: I was curious with regard to the second question: is there something you would like to see on both pages?

Howard: I agree with Kevin, the overview does a better job of addressing the question. I think there really is a need for some change. It is a very helpful segment on the overview page. The first sentence and the uses really explains.

Brent: can someone scribe I have an urgent call.

<shadi> scribe: shadi

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask if that nested list is still around anywhere? and to say overview page becomes just pointer? https://www.w3.org/WAI/people-use-web/

Shawn: agree on nested list but also agree that it may get too complex
... wonder if prior approach still available somewhere?

Daniel: not easy to find

Shawn: might be good to take a look
... might have some suggestions to simplify it
... also agree with considering what is on the overview page versus the how-to page
... what if someone lands on one of the two pages

<Vicki> Ok, I'm back. All okay. I can continue to scribe.

Shawn: maybe overview can become just a pointer page

Daniel: agree, maybe just keeping the table in the overview page

<Vicki> * shadi, brent, put me to scribe again.

Daniel: need to play around with that a little more

<scribe> scribe: Vicki

Brent: any other comments about the commpact page?

The survey

Brent: There is a lot to do, read in the survey, please complete it.

<brentb> Develop Accessible Content curricula: https://deploy-preview-119--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/developing-accessible-content/

Daniel: The survey is about the Developer Curricula. There are 6 modules, with sub topics for each module important for a developper audience. I hope it will be very useful and we really look forward to your feedback.

<JasonMcKee> this has been great everyone thank you. I have to jump on a call but I hope you all have a great weekend!

Brent: Any questions specifically about this survey (open until October 13)?
... Just as a note, if you absolutely cannot find the time, please put the date by when you can review it. It is the "monkey" review so we are very appreciative of your time in completing the survey.

Daniel: Thanks in advance for your valuable input.

ARIA APG re-design meeting

Brent: As a reminder, during the week of TPAC group meetings, we will meet with the ARIA group people to discuss the re-design of the ARIA authoring practices guide. We have a link to that information and what will be covered. There is an open invitation. There is a group who wants to serve on the Task Force, those who want to be on the mailing list. We want to extend the invitation and let us know if you want to be involved.

<shawn> Task Force Work Statement

Brent: Currently, Currently, Shawn has helped me start a Task Force Work Statement. I'll be taking the lead as far as communications, contact back and forth, Shadi will take the technical lead. Any questions or comments on the redesign of ARIA authoring practices.

Work for this week

Brent: The biggest thing is the Curricula Survey. We are giving you back 40 minutes. It would be great if you could already get a start on that. Any other comments or business to be brought up?

<Crystal> Cheers

Brent: Many thanks for the feedback and thank you Daniel, for going through the concept draft.

* shawn, can I leave now? Have you htmled the minutes?

pleasure! it was a little complicated today :)

<shawn> 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 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/10/02 15:11:11 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
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/uploading courses/listing courses that follow this curricula/
Succeeded: s/Trust & ?/Trusted Tester/
Default Present: Daniel, Hidde, Sharron, Brent, Laura, Shawn, Kevin, Vicki, Jason, Shadi, Crystal, Howard, KrisAnne

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Laura, brentb, Sharron, eoncins, Kevin, Mark, KrisAnne, Estella, Jason, Hidde, Kenzo, Shadi, shawn, Daniel, Howard, hdv, JasonMcKee, Crystal)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Daniel, Hidde, Sharron, Brent, Laura, Shawn, Kevin, Vicki, Jason, Shadi, Crystal, Howard

Present: Daniel Hidde Sharron Brent Laura Shawn Kevin Vicki Jason Shadi Crystal Howard KrisAnne
Found Scribe: Vicki
Inferring ScribeNick: Vicki
Found Scribe: shadi
Inferring ScribeNick: shadi
Found Scribe: Vicki
Inferring ScribeNick: Vicki
Scribes: Vicki, shadi
ScribeNicks: Vicki, shadi
Found Date: 02 Oct 2020
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]