<scribe> scribe: CarlosD
<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
<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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]