<scribe> scribe: CarlosD

New approach for supporting materials <https://deploy-preview-119--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/>

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

DM: this is a new approach for the supporting materials
... more context in the introduction
... simplified outline table
... removed advanced and intermediate references
... references for "all roles" or specific roles

<scribe> ... new section "Usage Guidance" to help make decisions about course creation

DS: Enjoys new structure
... instead of talking about a curriculum for developers should we talk about the activity (curriculum for developers)?

CD: Also a +1 for the new structure
... mapping between roles and activities is not one-to-one so that change would bring new challenges

DM: we can include that in the guidance (e.g. if teaching web development you can use modules from developers, designers and authors curricula)

SAZ: Such sentences are already in the usage guidance section
... do we need to add something else?

DS: I don't think we need to change anything in this section. The proposal was to move from role (developer) to activity (development).

SAZ: Would changing the left navigation be clear enough?
... Not having the roles could make it harder for some to find their focus area
... What would be the motivation for the change?

DS: By focusing on the "job title" you might exclude people who don't identify being in that role, but still conduct that activity
... But since this page is targeting the instructors that might not be an issue

SAZ: What needs to be absolutely clear is that the contents from the different curricula can be mixed
... Perhaps we can tweak the starting sentence "provides a set of role-based curricula" to make it clear that this not only addresses different roles but also different activities

DM: We organized the modules based on roles because we need to organize based on something

DS: Changing the initial sentence should be enough
... I would be happy to suggest some options https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/288

DM: Should the usage guidance be extended to include guidance on asynchronous or self-guided learning?

DS: I enjoy that current headings emphasise the accessible teaching practice. I think adding that would complement that well.
... emphasise the curricula supports different modes of teaching

SAZ: We could address that by changing some of the usage examples
... part of the online/in-class is already addressed in the "Make it Accessible" sub-section

CD: We have some assumptions in the introduction to the "Usage Guidance". We can extend that to "does not prescribe a specific delivery mode"
... if we don't want to have another sub-section

DM: Any other comments on this page?

CD: Not sure if a table is the best way to present the "Content Overview" material
... I would prefer a list of lists, or different lists

DM: We would need to add some sentences to provide context that the first module applies to all the roles
... or we could put the role names above the role modules to make that clear

DS: By having the role names above, it would be clear that the introductory module applies to all

SAZ: In the first row we could have "Development", "Designing", "Authoring" (activity based column headers) and keep the role names for the curriculum titles
... that would help make the distinction between activity and role

More on resource titles

<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-273--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/

DM: EOWG feedback suggested changes to the titles
... "Introductory for all" was suggested to be replaced with "Fundamentals" or "Essentials"
... but can that give the wrong impression that someone that takes the "Fundamentals" course will be able to create accessible materials without the "advanced" courses?
... versus having an "introduction" that makes it clear that there must be a follow-up

DS: Agree that we should convey that the first module is not enough

DM: Would "Basics" be an appropriate title?

SAZ: We need something that sits between "Introduction" (because people might skip over it) and "Essentials" (because people might believe that is enough)

DS: Instructors will name their modules later, so this might not be an issue

DM: What about "Foundations"?

CD: +1

DS: +1

<shadi> +1

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/suggest some options/suggest some options https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/288/
Succeeded: s/there must a follow-up/there must be a follow-up/
Succeeded: s/flip the roles above the roles /put the role titles above the role modules /
Succeeded: s/having the roles above/having the role names above/
Succeeded: s/role titles above /role names above /
Succeeded: s/and keep the role based headers when we get to the curriculum/and keep the role names for the curriculum titles/
Present: CarlosD shadi Daniel sloandr
Regrets: Donal_F. Donal_J. Estella Sarah Howard
Found Scribe: CarlosD
Inferring ScribeNick: CarlosD

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

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.)