scribe DonalR
<shadi> scribe: DonalR
dmontalvo: Issue is about target
sizes
... there was a comment that target sizes don't fit well under
flexibility
... Should we be mentioning target size in the module?
... secondly, how do we make it more meaningful for
designers?
sloandr: I appreciate background to the comment, but its still flexibility in terms of accommodating a variety of user needs. Suggest keeping it as is
<eoncins> +1 to mention target sizes
sloandr: maybe add something in module 1 about target sizes. Relates to interaction but more relevant to page layout etc
<GN> +1 to keeping it as is
sloandr: you could argue that its part of interaction and other places, but suggest it stays where it is
dmontalvo: I will reply to the
original commenter, and take the view of the group on
board
... anyone else wishing to comment...
dmontalvo: this agenda item is a
specific item - should landmarks go into information
design
... I am a little bit more on the fence on this one.
... we should keep them as they are and then elaborate more
about them about the semantic aspect of landmarks and put in
information design
... what we currently have is in visual design.
... opening for comment?
Howard: maybe better under
informational design?
... I think landmarks as related to aria role feature.
dmontalvo: what does landmark mean for you?
shadi: prefer to hear others first...
GN: landmarks are related to both topics
sloandr: agree that they relate to visual layout and semantic meaning of a page
eoncins: agree belongs to both
sloandr: Looking at module 1 learning outcomes - landmarks maybe not sufficiently described
Shadi: different between landmark and cue?
dmontalvo: landmark more related to coding, cues more related to visual
Dmontalvo: Visual landmarks will be kept in module 1, and programmatic landmarks will be dealt with in module 2.
<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-389--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/navigation-design/
dmontalvo: this is asking to add
reference to right to left languages. If so we may need to
broaden the scope, including for example vertical
writing.
... It may be better to say something like =different writing
systems. Do we need to add references, if so should we broaden
scope to vertical writing also
Shadi: where specifically - we don't mention anything on directionality.
dmontalvo: proposal is to have
design/layouts that consider different writing systems.
... acknowledging thats its not just RTL but also
horizontal
eoncins: agree that its relevant - maybe add to an existing learning outcome. to keep it more simple
shadi: missing the accessibility aspect.
slewth: can be issues that where an interface cannot cope with a language, for example if software cannot deal with Arabic then it can exclude accessibility
shadi: two issues: accessibility by assistive technology and also usability issues such as layout
Howard: seems a little out of scope of accessibility
Shadi: comment is brief - what is the relevance for accessibility - I may be missing something. maybe ask Carlos what was his thinking
dmontalvo: my understanding is if you have a menu items with a default size, then in a different language the words may move down. is this how interfaces behave when you make text bigger
sloandr: what do designers need to know in a way that avoids problems with internationalization. Also issues with length of a word. maybe there is a broader question to think about how to treat internationalization
<dmontalvo> Donal: I came across these issues when translating a recent course, but I don't think they relate to accessibility that much
<dmontalvo> .. Lots of usability and design issues, but not that many accessibility issues
dmontalvo: I will get back to Carlos on this one.
<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-389--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/information-design/
dmontalvo: Relates to learning
outcomes 3 and 4 in topic 'text'
... I took a pass,its now a little less wordy - reads out edits
made -
... there are some strong view that these should be split into
separate learning outcomes.
... is this new version better - cannot it be improved?
slewth: its clearer and easier to read. improved.
Howard: the current iteration is the one we are going with?
<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-389--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/information-design/
Howard: In a sense it says don't
use the abbreviation - is this realistic?
... when we say select, implies we are avoiding its use
altogether
dmontalvo: relates back to verbs we use - maybe 'judge' would be better.
Howard: in some ways I like the previous version - which implies you can have an acronym and use a tag to expand it
<eoncins> Sorry I have to leave for a meeting, I will catch up with the email.
sloandr: may not be the decision of the designer to decide if an acronym is used.
dmontalvo: yes, the content creator will make some of these decisions - not the designer.
slewth: Davids and Howards points well made
dmontalvo: OK - i will go back to
review the text - maybe revert to something that is closer to
the previous situation
... I may need to back to some people on the structure of the
live draft - I need to go back to commenters on specifics
... I plan to have a curricula meeting next week.
... Thanks for attending. its a slow process - input is
appreciate. Thanks all!