<scribe> Scribe: Sharron
<shawn9> Preszent: Sharron, Shawn, Kevin, Mark, Brent, Crystal, Daniel, KrisAnne
<dmontalvo_> https://deploy-preview-119--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/
Daniel: 3 aspects to discuss, will begin withstructure and the new approach we propose. We are considering including the guidance, providing more context. Discuss the audience, provide look at roles, outline an introductory content that is presented in a simpler way, and point to key aspects to take into account as you use the curricula to create courses and a dedicated section consdiering
certification.
<shawn9> [ Shawn learns new word: attestation ]
Daniel: Look at the structure, the proposed organization, will be wordsmithed later on. Today we want to be sure EO is comfortable with the structure, organization, and topics.
<Crystal> attestation unfamiliar too
Daniel: Difference between certification and accreditation
Kevin: Not quite sure what that section is telling me. What is it for?
Daniel: To let people know they can use the curriculum to compare certification courses.
Kevin: Maybe an example of
use
... it could be used to assess a certification or accrediation
course. The current content seems to have a lot of content but
not clear what is the point.
<shawn9> +1 to Kevin that not clear what is the purpose of this "Accreditation and Certification" section for this resource
Daniel: It is based on previous EO discussion. So adding that to the use case would be more helpful.
Brent: And the comparison bit is similar to what was previously stated.
Shadi: About this section, I have
been getting a lot of questions about certification - but just
one part. People are asking if this content is formally
recognized and can be referenced as people are building
attestations, accredidations, and certifications. There is the
potential for confusion as courses are built on this
curriculum.
... It seems important to distinguish between the curricula and
the courses and/or certifications built upon it.
Kevin: A fair explanation but I
am not sure that this section as it is accomplishes that.
... it is still unclear.
<Crystal> +1
Shadi: Is this not helpful?
<Crystal> It's confusing
<shawn> +1 to OK to leave the section -- but it needs to be rewritten to meet the goals that Shadi & Daniel says
Kevin: It seems as written to be
a dictionary defintion of certification but not related to this
content.
... this may not be the place to tell people what
accredidation/certification is. It is noise that gets in the
way of what you were saying aloud just now.
Shawn: There may be a place for a sentence or two about the distinctions but it should be quite brief and more closely related to this content.
Daniel: I am hearing to emphasize the relationship between certification and this content rather than explaining what they are.
Shawn: Suggest you start with
answering the questions Shadi reports he is getting.
... Nothing wrong with the information, it may be useful in a
blog post or something but not relelvant here.
Brent: Lead with the connection of this section to the curricula and can drill down to answer Shadi's questions.As it is now it is disjointed, hard to get the connection to our curricula.
Crystal: Reading from the beginning, it is explained to me that I can use it to compare or create certifications. But this does not seem to do that, to provide the way to use it for that purpose.
Daniel: We acknowledge that the curricula can be used to compare different certification programs but have not provided the mappings to create it.
Crystal: The course that is linked here is the only course endorsed by the W3C?
Daniel: Yes based on the first curricula published earlier this year. We have discussed in future providing something like the tools list that people could submit their courses but have not yet planned that.
Crystal: Does this course provide a certification?
Shadi: That is the question. We are encountering confusion around the intersection of this curricula work, courses that may be developed, the course W3C has now, certification initiatives around the world.
Shawn: Answering the questions
that Shadi brought up directly related to this curricula
probably does belong on this page.
... current content just needs to be modified to more directly
answer those questions.
<Vicki> +1 Shawn, to move the last sentence up
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say headings
Shawn: I very much like overall
succinctness of it (first 4 sections) Kudos on that. The
structure, nested lists, and terminology works well. The tweaks
I think are still needed are around Usage Guidance (??) Why not
'How to Use this Curricula' Instead of Example Usage, why not
something simpler
... good it is all on one page. Wonder if people think we need
formal headings or something a bit less formal, more
freindly.
Daniel: We did try to make it more conversatinal guidance, more accessible in tht way. I think the headings are correct and provides good structural information. What do others think
Sharron: I think heading structure is fine as is
<kevin> +1 to a bit of a pass
<Vicki> +1 to changing tweaking the headings "Usage Guidance" and "Example Uses" and modifying the heading "Accreditation and Certification" to suit the content which will be somehow modified.
Shadi: The paragaph under Usage
Guidance is the only content, could maybe be moved to the other
use examples section.
... maybe by moving the first paragraph up would help us have
more leeway to change the heading titles.
Kevin: How do you deal with the rest of the content, what doe it become?
Shadi: Best practices
Shawn: Now the paragraph starts with the examples and ends with how they apply. Should switch that.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to answer question about moving paragraph
Brent: Lead in with the connections and then give examples. Shawn, are you saying to soften or deformalize the language of the headings?
Shawn: Yes and make it more direct
Brent: Yes I agree with "Example Uses" needs to be clarified - what does it mean?
<shawn> [ "Example Uses" what does that mean? maybe "How you can use this curricula"]
<shawn> +1 for Brent heading should make sense hy themselves
<shadi> qq+
<Vicki> +1 to simply making "Usage Guidance" and "Example Uses" more meaningful/clearer as headings. Tweaking the headings.
<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to react to brent
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say "Content Overview" -> "Curricula Contents" -- or "What is in this curricula" (and include all Modules) and to say no expand collapse ; summary and Page
Shadi: Purpose was to let them know what to expect, how it is organized and what they can do with it? Should Uage be above the terminolgy or where it is now?
Shawn: Looking at what they need from this page the first time there are here compared to subsequent times. My view is to have a brief summary, links to content headings, reorganized content and entitled "Curricula Content" and include all modules
Kevin: Can we get rid of the expand/collapse? The purpose of e/c is to hide secondary content. None of this is secondary, none should be collpased. Shawns suggestion to provide a summary and heading links makes more sense to me.
Daniel: It came from the orgization when we had the tables. I agree that now it is shorter, we coould consdier remove it?
<brent> +1 to no expand collapse
Kevin: It is not a page that people will return to and use only parts of it.
<krisannekinney> +1 to no expand/collapse. its not too long of a wall of text to warrant it.
<Vicki> +1 to remove expand collapse
<MarkPalmer> +1 to remove
Daniel: Anyone want to retain the e/c?
Shadi: And add the summary and TOC to the page.
Daniel: If we add here, do we have to add to other modules?
Sharron: No, it is typical to do this on an overview page and does not need to be repeated module intros.
<shawn> +1 to Sharron
Daniel: Any other observations?
Shadi: Do people have thoughts on the order? Better to give Terminolgy first, then overview, then how to use?
Vicki: The example uses, I would move that after the content overview. The parts under Usage Guidance I am unsure about how to package, I have a bit of a problem with. Maybe the headings are not quite corrct.
<Vicki> Structure: 1) Move "Example Uses" to end of "Content overview", 2. Move the paragraph under "Usage Guidance" to "Content overview" before the modules start.
<Vicki> Move, "Structure and Terminology" to after "Content overview".
<Vicki> Change the title "Usage Guidance" to "Tips and Tricks"
Shawn: You can use a general term like 'modules' before you define it. Not to get too hung up on common words.But a word like 'attestation' should be defined before used
<Vicki> "Accreditation and Certification" could come before "Tips and Tricks/Best Practices"
<kevin> +1 to Vicki’s structural suggestion - not sure about ‘Tips and Tricks’
<MarkPalmer> +1 to Vicki's suggestion
<shawn> 0 I think generally good, although not sure about exact re-ordering of content
Shawn: Maybe a list of bullet points of "What we want people to get from this page"
Sharron: Agree that 'Tips and tricks' is not quite right. maybe just "Tips on Using the Curricula"
<shadi> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula/Supporting_Materials/
Daniel: In changing the title patterns, when you get to navigation, we have Curricula Overview and Introduction to Accessibility. The title did not really click, we suggested fundamentals or essentials. But thought that could lead people to beleive that essentials, etc might be sufficient and can stop. So Foundation will better communicate that this is the just the beginning and encourage people
to move on.
1+
<Vicki> "Foundations" in the left menu is finally not so clear. I would prefer to have "Foundation Modules" in the left menu, similarly "Developers Modules" also in the left menu.
<shawn> Sharron: Foundation a little ambiguous. NOt sure Essentials or Fundamentals seem nnot to say that's the end.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to ask why no Modules
Shadi: We initially started with Introductory and people were not confident, felt that they did not need an intro and did not convey the importance. So we went to essential or fundamental. Others thought essentials/fundamentals were making assumptions that it was too much the otehr way.
Kevin: It is not so much the first word as the lack of a second word.
<Vicki> +1 Kevin, the second word "Modules" needs to be in the left menu
<shawn> [ You can put "101" in parenthesis, at least in some situations (e.g., maybe blog) ]
Kevin: Foundations - what? Need that second word to complete. The lack of that work in the nav is a bigger problem. Could be Core, Essential, Basic, whatever but still need Modules.
Brent: And carry over to the others - developer modules, designer modules, etc?
Kevin: Yes
<MarkPalmer> +1 to "Core"
Brent: +1
KrisAnne: Would say the same thing, you need to add the word Modules especially since we use it later on the actual pages. But do not mind the word Foundation, often used in academia.
<shadi> [ kudos to Dave Sloan for suggestion "Foundations" for that same rationale ]
<shawn> [ KrisAnne -- Acme 101: Foundations of Acme ]
<shawn> Foundations of Web Accessiblity
KrisAnne: but Foundation Modules
is a mouthful, so maybe just foundation of Accessibility
... How we name these is important, maybe not to say
accessibility but this is how you become a good developer.
Shadi: One of the specific design things is to include these in general design and development trainings and classes
<shawn> Integrating Accessibility
KrisAnne: If developers just pay attention to forming valid code, they avoid creating many accessibility errors for themselves.
Daniel: Could put the word modules back into the navigation, even though the attempt was to shorten the term in the nav.
<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say: I like "Foundation" (and, need to figure out how we will refer to them, e.g., in Tweet -- e.g., "Developer Modules in Curricula on Web Accessibility" and
Shawn: I often encourage the ide
of Integrating Accessibility
... I like Foundations
... think of pros and cons of using Fundamentals as it is used
in main nav as Accessibility Fundamentals.
... personally I don't think it is confusing but do not feel
strongly.
<shawn> Sharron: Makes more sense in context of education
Daniel: Will put the word
'modules' back into the nav and leave it as 'Foundation'
... Anything more?
Brent: Great work, Daniel and Shadi thanks you
<brent> Link to Icon Set: https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/accessibility-icon-set
Shawn: Originally wanted different colors, sizes, and formats. Turned out to be more than 500 files.
<MarkPalmer> +1
Shawn: so 1st question - can you imagine using and what format would you want?
<Zakim> hdv, you wanted to say svg
Kevin: Yes, would use / best format would be SVG
Mark: Would like png and svg
Shawn: OK and how about
parapmeters? We are assking for attribution and link back to
WAI for outreach purpose. Anyhting else we sould ask?
... would have a dedciated icon page (with optonal other
stuff)
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG2AAA-Conformance.html
Shawn: Clarity about how to use the icons and comething about W3C so it is also an awareness/education tool
Brent: Any requirements about changing colors or other changes to the design?
Shawn: First response is why not? but is there something we are not thinking about?
Kevin: Most likely change will be color, don't see a problem with that. Not likely to change icon design, why else would you take an icon set?
Shawn: Yes OK, and maybe we
should give guidance to that and remind people to think about
contrast if they change colors.
... and may want to encourage them NOT to put the cross line
over the icon. To emphasize ability not disability.
Shadi: That is already happening,
they want to use it with a crossed out pattern. Despite that, I
don't think we should be restrictive but instead explain how
and why WAI EO made these choices but not try to force it in
any way.
... the open source principle would encourage re-use and
adaptations. Make the credit and point to WAI very simple and
easy to do.
... would take a low key approch, it is good for the community
if these icons circulate
Shawn: OK, any input about where to be in the site and nav? (share screen)
Any thoughts about how much visibility to give it?
<shadi> +1 to kevin
Kevin: What level of discoverability do you want for it? It may just come from our use of it.
Shawn: Good point, it may be
fndable as we use it
... anything else on these?
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/conformance-logos/#logos
Brent: Based on availability are not planning meeting on 27 Nov, 25 Dec, 01 Jan 2021. OK with everyone?
<Crystal> +1
Sharron: +1
<Crystal> Have a great day everyone.
Brent: No survey this week, but to dos will be added to the list. Contact AC rep, always outreach tasks - will be promoting videos from course and a few other things. But can always go back through previous posts
<shawn> 2019-2020 Mentions of EOWG & other WAI resources
<shawn> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/EOWG_Outreach#2019-2020_Mentions_of_EOWG_.26_other_WAI_resources
Shawn: If you've seen mentions of WAI resources and/or want to post promo, be sure to list those on the recording page.
trackbot, end meeting
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/organziatin/organization/ Succeeded: s/informaiton/information/ Succeeded: s/<shawn> Sharron: Add to this overview page, not other modeuls.// Succeeded: s/@shadi :)/ / Succeeded: s/So sorry but I have to leave./ / Succeeded: s/dicoverability/discoverability/ Default Present: Sharron, Shawn, Brent, Daniel, Crystal, Laura, Kevin, Hidde, Shadi, Vicki, Mark Present: Sharron Shawn Brent Daniel Crystal Laura Kevin Hidde Shadi Vicki Regrets: Laura Sylvie Andrew Howard Found Scribe: Sharron Inferring ScribeNick: Sharron Found Date: 06 Nov 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]