<scribe> scribe: CarlosD
dmontalvo: Changes in structure
that were discussed during August
... changes in first module includes changes in the name and
topic order
... we flipped module 2 and 3
... in module 2 there is a new topic order and updates to the
name and scope of the "Labels and Instructions" topic
... module 3 "Navigation" is almost the same, but the scope of
the learning outcomes is now broader
... module 4 "images" also had the topics flipped
... and we broadened the scope of the topic "complex
images"
... for module 5 "multimedia and animation" there have been
changes in terminology
... and on the sixth module we now have a new topic "forms
design"
... these are the main changes to the structure
... but it's work in progress and more changes can happen
... any comments?
... do you think this is better aligned with designers? or is
more confusing? any areas we need to improve?
... on the first module we changed the name of the "flexible
design" topic to "adaptability"
... also updating its scope
... a designer needs to know that the design needs to adapt to
different screen sizes and user preferences
... what do you think of these changes?
Howard: the module on "flexible design" is now "Flexible Layout and Design"?
dmontalvo: yes
eoncins: there was a request to
include "flexible design" in the foundation modules
... was this taken into account?
dmontalvo: there was a request to move the module on "inclusive design" to the foundation modules
eoncins: correct.
... for me module 1 is good
<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/350
eoncins: if inclusive design is covered in the foundation module then the new name is okay
<dmontalvo> Carlos: Mentioned in EOWG that we could have Visual design in module 1, information design in module 2, navigation design in module 3, adn then interaction design in module 6
<dmontalvo> ... This would re-brand the modules for designers in different aspects that are more related
dmontalvo: EOWG previously
mentioned that we need to approximate the terminology to
designers
... so we can take this opportunity to re-brand more modules
Howard: I like the
suggestion
... it connects everything back to design
... it gives a design thread to all the modules, categorizes
and makes the focus clearer
donalrice: I made some comments
in the previous survey around this issue
... the proposal has a consistency that I like
dmontalvo: I'm hearing that this is going a good direction but there is more to do
GN: I like the changes of module
1
... but the term "adaptability" is a misunderstanding
... "responsive design" is clearer
dmontalvo: do you think "responsive design" is handed by the module, or we need to include more on responsive design?
GN: it's just the term "adaptability" that can be misunderstood
dmontalvo: what do others think?
Roberto: I think we need to address it
dmontalvo: I'll probably roll back the term
shadi: I like the idea of using
the term responsive design somewhere
... because it's recognizable
... but it's a particular technique that does not address every
way a design needs to be adapted
... I like the term but it might just be a technique
... I like the idea to go back to "flexible design"
eoncins: I agree with what has
been said
... would it make sense to include a learning outcome or
teaching idea for students to distinguish between adaptability,
responsive, fluid, flexible designs
... people need to be able to distinguish between adaptability
and responsive design
Howard: the problem is that
adaptability is soo broad
... one thought could be to use "responsive layouts"
dmontalvo: that could work
because we would not by tying it to the technique "responsive
design"
... it clearly needs more work. Let's also wait for the survey
responses
dmontalvo: module 6 is trying to
present forms design more prominently
... but there have been comments that it might be too
much
... so we may end up having 2 different modules
... one on forms design
... the other on interaction design
... would you disagree with this split?
<Howard> +1 to splitting
Sarah: there is a lot of important content here, so I would agree with the split
Roberto: I agree
+1 to splitting
dmontalvo: if you agree go ahead and place it on the survey
eoncins: last week this was
brought up and one of the issues was that forms were covered in
module 2 but the name was in module 6
... so do we need to have a module on forms, or bring it up
under module 2?
dmontalvo: my idea is not to
cover forms extensively in module 2
... but cover only specific aspects related to labels and
instructions
... but we've been going back and forth between covering forms
in information design or elsewhere
eoncins: will the module cover only forms or will you introduce other subjects?
dmontalvo: we can have what we
say on labels and instructions, and on notifications; we can
introduce error handling
... we can have all that on the forms module
... it will cover subjects that are not specific to forms, but
relevant to other widgets
<dmontalvo> Carlos: I am confused. Do you mean moving everything related to forms? Also what is currently in module 2?
<dmontalvo> ... From what you said, this Forms module would present concepts that are relevant to forms but also to other interactive widgets.
<dmontalvo> ... Risk that people wanting to build other interactive widgets may overlook this knowledge
dmontalvo: I think we need to
keep some content on other modules, like labels and
instructions in module 2
... but we can run into that problem
<dmontalvo> Carlos: My initial thoughts is to have what we basically cover in the other modules remain there, and have "forms" module the last one, after students learned about the other concepts
<dmontalvo> ... Forms module would work on specific aspects related to forms
<dmontalvo> ... Otherwise, if we want to move it to a separate module, I don't know if calling that forms would be enough, maybe forms and widgets or something like that
<eoncins> +1 to split module 6 but not call it forms
dmontalvo: fair point... I need to consider this and bring up a proposal to make it easier to assess
dmontalvo: there was feedback
that a designer also needs to assess, critique and decide on
the different components that can be used based on user
needs
... Sarah and I took a pass at the Bloom's taxonomy
... and concluded that we verbs we need to use are evaluation
verbs
... we examined several of those
... and have updated multiple learning outcomes
accordingly
... have people had a chance to look at them?
donalrice: I have and agree
dmontalvo: do you think this is an improvement over what we had?
donalrice: at times I thought
evaluate was a bit unclear
... I was trying to come up with other terms, but I couldn't so
I support the changes
eoncins: some learning outcomes
are using 2 active verbs
... should we split that into 2 learning outcomes
... which is also recommended by the Bloom's taxonomy
dmontalvo: you're correct that we
should avoid this
... and the sentences are also becoming more convoluted
... we should not put too much in a single learning outcome
Sarah: I agree with Estella's
comment
... we need to make sure out readers will understand them as we
want
... we need to back them up with teaching ideas to make sure
that people understand them in the way we want
<Roberto> I have a hard stop folks. I'll catch up with the notes and add any comment to the survey. Very interesting conversation.
dmontalvo: I need to update the
teaching ideas, but waiting for the discussion on the structure
to finalize
... don't forget to complete the survey
... this will take less time than the previous one