W3C

WAI Curricula Task Force Teleconference

07 Dec 2021

Attendees

Present
eoncins, CarlosD, brent, GN, Howard
Regrets
Chair
Daniel
Scribe
Estella

Contents


Setting up meeting, choosing scribe

<scribe> Scribe: Estella

Daniel: Editor draft refers to edited, more stable and live draft is used for update.

Examples of flashing content can put students at risk

<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-433--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/multimedia-and-animations/#topic-movement-and-animations

Daniel: In module 6 we have examples of flashing content and how to avoid it. Providing examples might be dangerous and may put students at risk...
... we should clarify this. I would like to gather your comments and qualify this. I would like to propose not get rid of examples but I knowledge the point. We may provide warning to instructors. What do you think?

Carlos: I think that we should keep it and provide warnings.

Daniel: Some instructors might also be at risk. I agree with the value.

+1 to keep it with a clear warning

Brent: I also +1 verbally I usually get the question of getting an example.

Daniel: That is actually the intention.

Brent: Is the warning something that you want to work on?

<GN> +1

Daniel: Yes this is something that I would like to introduce in the introduction, and also in the teaching ideas we might also want to clarify it.
... This needs further work and I would like to work on this week.

Howard: You talk about the acceptable threshold. Should we have a link that provides further consideration on this in terms of flashing?

Daniel: I need to make sure that there is a technique for this and link it to the warning. I will explore it and we could provide it.

Use non-visual cues in a visual design module.

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/398

Daniel: In the visual design content we had the use of visual and non-visual cues. The question if we should keep this. We wanted to provide the idea that providing only visual cues is not sufficient and that providing non visual cues is also needed...
... first question should we reconsider this approach of considering non visual elements in visual design?

Is it OK?

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/397

Daniel: the aim is to advise designers about the need to use visual and non-visual cues.

Carlos: For the me way you addressed it makes sense. I am happy with the proposal.

Daniel: I am still not sure if we should use "several", "multiple" or a combination but I will address that.

"Evaluate the overuse of design elements" out of scope?

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/398

Daniel: There is an editorial issue that needs to be addressed. We have the formulation related to too many design elements and in this case "overuse" might be out of scope...
... the rational of having this even if it overlaps "accessibility" and "usability", using too many images may cause an accessibility issue in terms of cognitive effort, or for the use of screen reader...
... that is why I considered that it was worth to mention it. Are we ok with the fact that there is an overlap but at the same time presents an accessibility issue?

Howard: Is this fact only in the learning outcomes or it is addressed in the topics?

Daniel: We have it in the learning outcomes and I would say that it is also in topics or teaching ideas.

Howard: If it is kept as it is, then it needs to be further developed, otherwise it might be better to take it out.

Carlos: At the moment we do not have any teaching ideas, but I see the point that Daniel just made to keep it.

Daniel: It seems that people agree but needs a better connection with the teaching ideas.

+1 to keep it and related to teaching ideas as Howard and Carlos mention.

Daniel: Before relating it to teaching ideas I wanted to make sure that we agree on this aspect.

Clarifying "names for components"

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/403

Daniel: Related to module information design and we had an issue related to names and components which might be clear for teachers but maybe not for designers...
... I took a pass and decided to go back to labels and explain what labels mean in the context of information design...

<dmontalvo> https://deploy-preview-433--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/designer-modules/information-design/#topic-naming-and-grouping

Daniel: I paste the link.
... do people have an issue with the use of labels instead of names and components?

Brent: For me is difficult as I am not a designer my question is what do we mean by names and components?

Daniel: When you create a link such as "Home" related to an iconography you have to provide a non visual name. That is why for me returning to labels might be better for designers.

By labels I mean the visual and the programmatic use.

+1 to the use of labels instead of components and elements.

Daniel: The word components is going to disappear and be changed into labels.

Howard: I would go with that change, also names might be too generic.

Daniel: We will go with labels and might provide a couple of examples to better describe what is mean.

Clarifying "unintended purpose"

<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/435

Daniel: This issue was raised by Sharron I took a pass and we use intended purpose to those different from the standard.

Brent: To me identify how non-standard uses of form elements is more clear than what is right now.

Gerhard: For me non-standard use is more clear.

+1 to non-standard use

Daniel: we still have three proposals: Some proposals follow: identify how non-standard uses of form elements (for example using links instead of buttons to submit a form) can cause compatibility issues and cognitive overload identify how non-standard uses of form elements (for example using radio buttons for multiple selection) can cause compatibility issues and cognitive overload identify how non-standard uses of form elements (for ex[CUT]

Proposal 1: identify how non-standard uses of form elements (for example using links instead of buttons to submit a form) can cause compatibility issues and cognitive overload

Proposal 2: identify how non-standard uses of form elements (for example using radio buttons for multiple selection) can cause compatibility issues and cognitive overload

Proposal 3: identify how non-standard uses of form elements (for example using several check boxes for single selection) can cause compatibility issues and cognitive overload

Daniel: Which is the best proposal for you?

Brent: For me the best proposal would be the first proposal.

+1 to the first proposal

<brent> +1

Daniel: We will stick to what is on the issue not in the live version.

Gerhard: The problem is that you may have a link which is actually a roll button.

Brent: Then we might be using another example.

Gerhard: Another bad practice is to take a button as a text.

Daniel: I see the point that we may want to look for a better example to illustrate the purpose.
... another example might be drop down lists, Gerhard if you have further suggestions let me know.

Gerhard: Using a read only text box.

Daniel: I will keep working until the next meeting 14th December and on 21st December there might be no meeting.

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/12/09 12:05:23 $