<Daniel> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula/WAI_Curricula_Task_Force_Meetings#Scribe_Rotation_List
<scribe> scribe: shadi
DM: survey last week
... motivation for changing the title
... first of all, better communicating the title
... was not very clear that design and development not in
scope, only developer part
... new naming would
better clarify roles
... and also better
aligns with other existing resources
... like the Accessibility Roles and Responsibilities Matrix
(ARRM)
... and Getting Started Tips
... any objections to this title change?
<Daniel> ARRM's role definition document https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Role_definition_document
<Daniel> Tips for Getting Started with Web Accessibility https://www.w3.org/WAI/design-develop/
SAZ: trying to better reflect the role "Developer"
GN: argument makes sense
... but twice "Curriculum" in the title is a bit much
DF: agree with the argument but also with Gerhard's concern
CD: yes, same for me
... also first curriculum has different style
... people could misunderstand that it is not part of the
curricula
... unless all curricula have the same naming style
Developers [in Curricula on Web Accessibility]
For Developers [in Curricula on Web Accessibility]
Developers Curriculum [in Curricula on Web Accessibility]
SAZ: what would we call the first curriculum?
DF: "General"
DM: for navigation maybe
"Introduction for All", then "Detailed (Developers)"
... and then on the main page just have "Developers - in
Curricula on Web Accessibility"
CD: like highlighting the role
for first curriculum
... currently missing from title
... not fond of the "Detailed" approach, though
DF: agree
"Introduction for All", "For Developers", "For Designers", ...
CD: like that for secondary
navigation
... but not for page title
DM: page title can be slightly
different from navigation
... page title could be just "Developers"
CD: "Curriculum for Developers- in Curricula on Web Accessibility"
SAZ: is the repetition of curriculum/curricula in the subtitle?
DM: could live with it probably
SAZ: other terms we could use instead of "curriculum"
DF: "Modules" would be great but already used different
DM: "Modules for Developers in Curricula on Web Accessibility"
DF: like that
CD: me too
"Introduction Modules for All in Curricula on Web Accessibility"
"Introduction Modules in Curricula on Web Accessibility"
"Introductory Modules in Curricula on Web Accessibility"
"Introductory Modules for All Roles in Curricula on Web Accessibility"
Navigation: "Curricula on Web Accessibility", "Introduction for All", "For Developers", "For Designers", "For Authors", ...
Page titles: "Curricula on Web Accessibility - A Framework to Build Your Own Courses", "Introductory Modules - in Curricula on Web Accessibility", "Developer Modules - in Curricula on Web Accessibility", "Designer Modules - in Curricula on Web Accessibility", "Author Modules - in Curricula on Web Accessibility", ...
GN: I like it
CD: looks good to me
DF: to me too
DM: good, so we have a plan for
that
... will try to implement now
... in the living draft
... Pull Request 273
DM: had comment on improving
reference to Single Page Applications (SPA)
... so commonly used and people may not even notice
... suggestion was initially to add it to Navigation
module
... then suggested Custom Widgets as it seems more
appropriate
... dealing there with focus management, live regions, and such
aspects
... but in looking at this more closely, seems Module 6 is
becoming more miscellaneous
... dropping things in there that don't fit anywhere else
... seeking advice on where to best add this, Module 2, 6, or a
new module?
DF: specific challenges of SPA not covered in the curriculum?
DM: probably could teach with
current curriculum
... but could be highlighted
... for example keyboard navigation and focus management
CD: will not have enough content for SPAs for an entirely new module
DM: could be other things that we
need to add
... like dynamic content, for example through auto-updating
GN: like "Dynamic Content"
... SPA could go there
SAZ: also like idea of "Dynamic
Content"
... think "Live Regions and Notifications" could go there
... and parts of "Keyboard and Focus Management" that are not
specific to an individual widget
DF: also aspect of "States Management"
CD: like that idea, "Dynamic Content" with "Statement Management" as topic inside
GN: important topic that deserves own module
DM: seems we are all leaning
towards that
... think could be already covered with the current "Custom
Widget"
... but would be clearer to separate out in its own module
SAZ: would also make it more
clear from the outside to see what the curriculum covers
... right now applications not well reflected in the module
titles
DR: isn't that an advanced
topic?
... current 6 modules seem very nuts and bolts
... SPA seems like a use-case rather than intermediate
DM: trying to collapse
intermediate and advanced
... into just one curriculum for developers
SAZ: trying to cover much of the
core in that curriculum for developers
... could add further modules in the future
... but decided that the determination of "intermediate" and
"advanced" is relative and not for the curricula to pre-set
DM: plan to bring back supporting
guidance next week
... got your feedback in a previous review and implementing
changes
... like the table detailing which topics to cover for which
roles