<dmontalvo> "Visual Design Orientation Cues"
<dmontalvo> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula/WAI_Curricula_Task_Force_Meetings#Scribe_Rotation_List
<CarlosD> scribe: CarlosD
<dmontalvo> https://wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/interaction-design/#topic-keyboard-interactions
dmontalvo: we did not have a
relation between keyboard support and assistive technology...
we have now
... both as a learning outcome and teaching idea
... does this fit well or is there any thing that needs
improving?
sleuth: I would suggest either
"modes of interaction" or "ways of interacting"
... ways might be more accessible, but modes might be more
accurate
dmontalvo: I will think this through, also considering the reading level
<dmontalvo> https://wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/interaction-design/#topic-keyboard-interactions
dmontalvo: while reviewing the
resource I noticed that we were missing an item on the focus
positioning
... I've updated the existing learning outcome to consider also
that aspect
... the teaching ideas have also been updated
estella: I like the definition provided in the teaching ideas, but I miss an example of what a complex widget can be (from a designer perspective)
dmontalvo: we do have a list of examples in the module introduction, but we need to be more explicit here
CarlosD: I have a similar question regarding "programmatic focus". Will a designer understand what it is?
dmontalvo: been looking at documentation, and would like suggestions for defining "programmatic focus"
estella: the examples of complex widgets at the top will make it easier for designers to understand
<estella> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/SL25.html
<estella> Examples. Example 1: User-enabled control that programmatically sets focus.
CarlosD: perhaps instead of using the concept "programmatic focus" we could describe the action "programmatically setting focus"
dmontalvo: agree that we should explain it better, since we do not want to provide a definition for it here
<estella> +1 for clarification
<dmontalvo> https://wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/visual-design/
dmontalvo: we discussed in the EO
meeting... we were recommended to expand on this topic and
address it in the forms module
... I thought about addressing it in the gestures and motion
topic
... where do you think this expansion would fit best?
estella: when you refer to target sizes do you also refer to responsive design?
dmontalvo: WCAG does not directly refer to responsive design, but I think it has a relation with responsive design, that is why I place it in the flexible layouts topic
estella: I believe it would fit better in interaction design than in forms
CarlosD: +1
<slewth> scribe
<slewth> scribe: slewth
<estella> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/target-size.html
Estella: looking at responsive
layout and responsive design when dealing with target
size
... it would be good to mention it - these are 2 concepts - but
they are linked
Daniel: yes. We've discussed whether to have module/topic on responsive design. This was removed because..
it was seen to be one approach to design, design adapts in multiple ways, so it was thought lets not stress only this, when it is multifold
scribe: but let's see how we can connect this. The reference to responsive design, is it in there?
Estella: The term 'responsive
design' may be more resonate for designers. If target size is
only mentioned, they may not have a clear view of what this
means. But if we include responsive design with this, it may be
clearer.
... this is a comment, my point of view.
Daniel: I may follow up with you on this one.
Estella: Kevin may be able to help here as he is close to designers
Daniel: So you're suggesting we explore how to connect these 2 terms, to see what is better understood, to clarify target size in view of responsive design
<dmontalvo> https://wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/#introduction
Daniel: The July survey and EO suggest structure needed changing...
we added paragraph on structure that we've chosen, saying 'this is to teach designers, acknowledging they're often taught with developers, please adapt as necessary', added in august..
now we've made changes to structure, what does this paragraph add? Now we have use cases...
e.g. faculty teaching designers and developers together is already on front page, so proposal is to delete this paragraph. It has been edited out...
EO was agreeing that this should be removed...
Checking that Task Force support this side that para should deleted...
Estella: I think it's important
designers and developers work together, but the structure is
not there, so I agree
... also the user experience is somehow lost - is user
experience mentioned?
Daniel: user experience was going to be on first page, but technically all of this is user experience, and these are the recommendations and requirements have have to be there...
but I do see the enumeration here leads you to think this is going to be discussed in module 3, but it should be throughout...
scribe: we have design user experiences for
... notifications.
Estella: User experience could be expressed...
Daniel: I need to take a pass at this, so express this differently, adding text to express interaction to the user experience is discussed/embedded across the whole curriculum...
would that be better if it's used in more generic context...
Estella: throughout, yes.
... but how it's now raised, it's model 1, model 2, it needs to
be a full consideration.
Daniel: Yes, I'll take a pass at this paragraph, so user experience is perceived across the modules.
slewth: Agree with Estella - important to express value of User experience explicitly as a value of accessibility, seeing this in our research
Daniel: making sure that user
experience is shown across the piece and not potentially shown
only as part of a module.
... anything addition?
Daniel: Topic Orientation Cues in visual design, has gone though several iterations...
in learning topic - we had use text cues, provide for visual only, with calendar example - this had a few issues, it was similar to colour alone...
scribe: this was convoluted. and the last iteration based on last weeks discussion now is simplified, although still long. The example has been updated on Kevin's suggestion...
in terms of orientation cues, this is the last point...
are we happy with these changes?
Estella: I think this was a discussion at the EO meeting, so I would agree with that.
Daniel: I think you were there! We discussed in the Task Force and then Brought to EO...
this is how it now looks.
Estella: I have no further comments.
Slewth: no comments from me.
Daniel: These are last points on the agenda. some minor changes before we launch the survey. This part on user experience, and exploring the connection between target sizes and responsive design in terms of designer understanding...
and there's also the comments we've had on programmatic focus. Slight changes, I'll work on these this week.
Daniel: Thank for that! We'll talk next Tuesday. I'll consider whether this goes to EO and keep you posted.