W3C

- DRAFT -

Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

17 Jun 2022

Attendees

Present
(no one), Sharron, krisanne, shawn, kevin, Howard, Michele, Daniel
Regrets
Chair
Brent
Scribe
Mark, Brent

Contents


<Sharron> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 17 June 2022

<shawn> scribe: Mark

<shawn> scribenick: MarkPalmer

<Brent> Scribe: Brent

<Sharron> scribe: Mark

Accessibility Course List

Brent: What courses are included and excluded.
... We can recap if necessary. And choice of course cost. Are we covering all choices.
... Want to see if anyone hasn't read issue 188 in GitHub.

<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-course-list/issues/188

<Howard> need to look over

Brent: Want to make sure everyone understands that issue.
... Open issue 188. Link in IRC. Scope of what courses can get in.
... Questions asked in user testing: What about internal courses which only employees can take. Or even University courses?
... Other courses where maybe you have to go to that university.

Kris-Anne: Matriculated

Brent: Also, conferences where the company may want to list their course in the list but they are a limited/one time course.
... So we need to be able to remove these.
... More about matriculation/employment/attendance at conference than fees.
... Need to figure out the pros and cons of this.

<Howard> no to a and b

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask about courses with end date automatic? and to say AND company specific request

Brent: We want opinions from the lager group.

Sharron: Can Letitia or Carlos give us an overview of the complexity of the interface so we understand the possibilities.

Shawn: Want to make clear that we have a specific request from a company.
... Other quick clarification - do we already have a plan for end dates on courses?

Brent: Either Letitia or Carlos? Can you talk about the logistics?
... Automatic removal of courses that have passed etc?

Letitia: For now we have added a note on the end date which informs users course has expired.
... Nothing automatic just now but plan to add it.
... We need to look at the concept before we decide whether we can add it.

Kevin: I think that internal to a company makes no sense.
... What is the use case?

<shawn> qq+ to answer Kevin and note about minutes

Kevin: Conference stuff makes some sense. Effort is for the user not for us. What value does that bring for users? Why would I put it on here?
... Do we have the broader audience they seek?
... I don't see any value in doing so

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to react to kevin to answer Kevin and note about minutes

Shawn: Two things. Firstly, we will point to these minutes.
... So give scribe time to capture your comments. This is responding to a specific request.
... What he said was "We have situations where employee will search for a course, find it, but not realise we had suitable internal courses"
... Other thing is knowing what courses are available is helpful for benchmarking.
... Looking at the audience, the initial motivation was not just so an individual could find a course they want to take.

<Brent> Link to Audience of course list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula/List_of_Courses#Audience

Shawn: I may want to hire someone to train my team. That is also a motivation. We have this great curricula. Who is using it?
... Just a reminder that there is this other purpose to the list.
... All of this was to communicate background. I am not personally advocating for any solution right now. Not my personal perspective.

Howard: No. But I will elaborate. No to internal courses. Justification Shawn presented makes it an even stronger no. Don't see the point of it.
... Also no to conferences.

Shawn: We need more than no. We need the user perspective.

Howard: No point to it. More problematic when internal course added. Resource would fill up with internal courses that not everyone could take.

<kevin> +1 to the problem of filling up the resource with courses that people couldn't take

Howard: Conferences are too transitory
... Third one is more nuanced. I could go either way. If not requiring matriculation then it probably should be in there.

<shawn> [ matriculation = enrolled into university ]

Howard: For those that require matriculation I have no opinion. I would need more info on who would be interested in those.

Brent: Thank you Howard.
... Great perspective howard

Esttella: I agree that internal courses do not make sense.

Estella: Because they are closed.
... Not open to people from other organisations.
... If you cannot join a course, why are we announcing it?

<Sharron> +1

<krisanne> +1

<Brent> +1

Estella: Also webinars. I don't know the complexity of managing webinars open to external staff.
... Presenting conference details in a single space is useful.
... Third one is about registration. A student is enrolling for a specific course for a specific duration.

Sharron: So you would support listing university course if open to anyone? But not if you need to be accepted into the university?

Estella: We have specific duration courses here.

<shawn> [ ---> webinar is a good question! -- we need to figure out if that is is scope. lots of short, one-time webinars. would be good to document what is in or out of scope <-- Leticia ]

Estella: But then you have Bachelor course. It does not make sense to add courses not about accessibility specifically but which have a module about accessibility.

Kris-Anne: The scope was that these have to be dedicated accessibility courses. We are not listing course which simply have a unit on accessibility.

Estella: I fully agree with that scope.
... Courses specifically on accessibility. That's it.
... I have to manually calculate when the course ends and this might lead to confusion. Might be worth considering so that it doesn't lead to confusion,

Laura: I see this as a UX issue. It's a public website.
... The user can pay for this course and I can get it. Adding private courses that only employees can take will end up making people mad. It's not appropriate for a private course to be listed on a public site.

+1

<kevin> +1

<krisanne> +1

<Brent> +1

Laura: Re conferences - unless I can sign up and pay for one course then that makes sense. If I need to sign up for the conference in it's entirety then no.

<Howard> Is a 'course' during a conference a 'course'?

Sharron: At AccessU we are considering converting courses to online courses.
... ICT testing symposium for instance may want to make their courses available.

Laura: As long as I can book the course on it's own and not pay like $600 for a conference then that's ok.

Kris-Anne: I don't think CSUN course are created just to given at CSUN for example. These are existing courses which could also be attended elsewhere, not just CSUN.

Sharron: How do we make those distinctions in the referral process?

Laura: Organisations that create courses like that - they're going to do it on their website first.

Sharron: Was thinking of other situations than just mine.
... The real distinction we have to make in the submission process.

Laura: We need to say this has to be a standalone course.
... Anything that is part of a degree programme shouldn't be listed.
... Should be about individual free or paid accessibility courses.

Brent: Do we consider a webinar talking about accessibility to be a course?

Kris-Anne: Making these comments as a participant, not chair: To me, private companies listing course is a life change, not just a course to expand your life.
... Webinar point is good. a lot of online course are very much like a webinar.
... Need more time to think about whether webinars are listed as a course.
... I want to see large list of publicy available accessibility courses.
... Most colleges allow you to take a range of courses before you apply
... You may need to apply but not necessarily apply to the school.
... Do we ask someone to say could you take this course without being a matriculated student?
... A checkbox yes/no for that? Would it be useful or just add to the form?

Daniel: I think coming back to why - this is a difficult decision. We need to connect this to how difficult it would be to vet this.
... I understand we won't vet every course. How easy or difficult would it be?
... How can we double check if we have a course behind a paywall or an employee of the company?

Brent: It goes back to the question of do we put that in the submission form.

Carlos: As someone in the group, not the editor, for internal courses it is also a no from me because they are exclusionary. I can't attend.
... For conferences, I am aware that a lot of conference organise workshops and would be in favour of including as long as full conference registration is not required.

+1

Carlos: For those it would make sense.
... Not sure conference organisers would make the effort to fill in the form, but that's on them.
... For me webinar is not a course. Much closer to a lecture.
... Need to be clear on distinction between webinar and online courses.
... Would need to check the content to ensure it's a course and not a webinar.
... Re matriculated courses - was under the impression that these were in the current list of options.
... But agree no sense to list a module of a wider course.
... Difficult to decide whether it belongs on the list or not.
... There are examples of graduate programs I would like to see on this list.

<shawn> for example -- Inclusive Design (MDes) https://www.ocadu.ca/academics/graduate-studies/inclusive-design

Carlos: Masters programme focused on accessibility and inclusive design.
... But from different perspectives. ICT, digital design, architecture.
... This is an example of a masters programme I would include here.
... More students interested than can be admitted.
... More control when applying to a university than the idea of applying to a company just to access their course.
... Want to support Kris-Anne's comments on university allowing people to take subjects without enrolling so this might be an argument for alllowing some under grad programmes.

Howard: With conferences, was going to add programmes offered on an ongoing basis. Webaim document accessibility for instance.
... Would be worthwhile adding that in the scope.
... Graduate certificate programmes would definitely include.
... If we are not going to screen things out though they might end up in the resource anyway.
... Likely to find things in the list that are not part of the expected scope.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say being able to see what university courses are available (and using WAI curricula), was a purpose of this list initially and to note that conference

Shawn: We actually do look at them. Not automatically accept them.
... Assuming we will do that, I think it would be ideally we focus on the effort on our part vetting submissions.
... If university courses it might be best to draw the line here but that will complement maintenance.
... Could we just allow college university accessibility courses? Not a huge number that are questionable so it's a lot easier.
... Do keep in mind the maintenance burden.
... Full day workshops associated with the conference if you can take those without signing up tot he conference. Drawing the line there is a high maintenance burden so we need to not add that burden.
... We need to clearly document so that it's easy to vet.
... To remind the purpose was not just for learner looking to take a class. Was also for the policy maker to see what education is available.
... Another initial purpose was to encourage use of our curricula.
... Also invited Shadi to comment on this. He may have additional information.

Laura: Was just thinking of Carlos' example of course not 100% accessibility but substantial portion. Description when submitting the course is critical.
... It may prompt them to create another version of course where they could allow a lot of people to take it.
... Maybe we should say that the registration process should be straightforward.
... Not sure how you police it.
... Maybe somehow in the submission form we can specify a simple process of signup before they put the course on our list.

Sharron: This goes back to my question at the beginning of how we are going to monitor.
... How much of a burden is it putting on us?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to followup on Laura (and for Leticia): *purpose* of this list is to encourage more high-quality courses

Shawn: I think that one of the main purposes of this list was to encourage more high quality courses.
... So let's keep that in mind.

Estella: I agree with Carlos. There is value in adding these type of courses.
... I have an issue of duration. Courses which have no start and ending time.

Carlos: On that topic, the majority of courses submitted so far are from Udeme courses.
... Essential for us to maintain the list.
... How will course submitters be aware of this criteria?
... We need this so we can justify when we refuse.
... Wouldn't it be useful for course submitters to have this beforehand?

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to say need to put link to scope at the *top* of the form!

<kevin> +1 to making people aware of the process and submission criteria

Brent: If we do have scope, where should this go because it's not currently there.

Shawn: Yes we would. We need to polish it.
... Maybe make a short list and then point to a longer list.
... Definitely put what is not included.

Brent: Something at the top of the form that they read which unlocks the form once they acknowledge it.
... May make it too complex.

Sharron: I had some input at WAI co-ordination meeting but I can hold until we make this decision.

Brent: Company wanting to add internal courses.

Proposed resolution: Company internal courses are out of scope

+1

Proposed resolution: Company internal courses out of scope

<Laura> +1

<Howard> +1

+1

<krisanne> +1

<Sharron> +1

<Brent> +1

<Leticia> +1

<CarlosD> +1

<kevin> +1

<estella> +1

RESOLUTION: Company internal courses are out of scope

<dmontalvo> [ me reminaing neutral ]

<shawn> [ me reminaing neutral ]

Proposed resolution: Full conference schedule is out of scope

+1

<Sharron> +1

<kevin> +1

<Howard> +1

<CarlosD> +1

<Michele> +1

<krisanne> +1

<Laura> +1

<Brent> +1

<Leticia> +1

<estella> 0

<dmontalvo> 0

Howard: Just wondering if we need to decide this contrast between training and courses? Have we decided that?
... Have we resolved that or not?
... If people don't think this needs to be discussed then that's fine too.

Brent: What about if it's just a webinar of say a Zoom webinar on ARIA? Is that a course?

Shawn: We need to say why
... It's not the 1 hr webinar because that doesn't use our curricula

Kevin: What I would say is that conference is an event not a single course

Estella: People willing to make research in academia need conferences

<CarlosD> +1 to a list of accessibility related conferences (but I don't think this is the resource for that list)

Estella: People who want to develop their academic life need conferences.

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to ask interactivity? and to disagree with Kevin (just for the fun of it) and to note some pre-conference workshops get CUEs

Shawn: There are a lot of pre-conference workshops where you get academic credit could qualify as courses. Where do we draw the line? Interactivity?
... If there is interactivity then some of those are courses.

Kevin: It's a tricky challenge here.
... I don't think we are going to get a definition here. Guidelines are more useful here.

Shawn: Maybe would be good to shift to the guiding question. Is it one way teaching?

<shawn> Mark: Does it teach you techniques

<shawn> ... versus e.g., how they embeedded accessibility in their company

Shawn: Can we do a time check?
... Does the time question require a change in the submission form. Do we need an answer on that today.

Brent: Can we table the conference question?

<Howard> fine with tableling

Howard: Fine with moving on.

<shawn> [[ I made these suggestions to address the issues that came up in WAI CC : https://github.com/w3c/wai-course-list/issues/199]]

Shawn: I propose we step back and ask Carlos and Letitia to take this input and come back with a proposal and any questions.

<kevin> +1 to offload the problem onto Carlos and Leticia!

Course Cost List

Letitia: Situation is that we have a set of options for costs.

<shawn> https://github.com/w3c/wai-course-list/issues/164

Letitia: Maybe we have an option that can lead to double interpretation. Free or reduced fee for some. Some may be different for everyone.
... We do not want to list all as free courses when they are paid courses.

Shawn: Can you remind us what you thought would be free versus fee. Examples?

Leticia: Free or reduced fees for people with disabilities.

Brent: For some qualifying people it could be free or reduced fee.

Shawn: Would this work if these were checkboxes instead of buttons.

Kevin: I think this is two questions. Firstly, is it free or paid for? Secondly, discount or additional costs?
... If you have it as two questions it prevents a lot of the questions.

Shawn: That's not the same as our situation

Kevin: Yes it is

Brent: Title of second question would be discounts or additional costs.

Kevin: We could go down a rabbit hole and I'm not sure that would add anything much.
... This isn't about capturing absolutely everything. Just enough.

Carlos: Would changing it to free with reduced free option for some be less confusing?

Shawn: No, not at all.
... (Correction) Yes it would.

<shawn> unpolished wording:

<shawn> Cost (Required)

<shawn> () Free of charge

<shawn> () Free with certificates for purchase

<shawn> () Paid, with some free limited content or duration

<shawn> () Paid, with free or reduced fee for some

<shawn> () Paid

<CarlosD> +1

<Sharron> +1

+1

<Laura> +1

<Leticia> +1

<Brent> +1

<krisanne> +1

<dmontalvo> +1

<kevin> +1

<krisanne> +1

Brent: So closing out, we have a lot of feedback for Leticia and Carlos. You will come up with more options and we will continue to discuss.

Work for this week

Brent: A new survey is open

<dmontalvo> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/curriculaContentAuthorsMonkeReview/

Daniel: This is the content authors monkey review
... Covers the 6 modules we have
... Slight change. New approach for the titles.
... Please take the time. Medium/long review time.

Brent: Again, we want everything commented on now.
... That's pretty much it. Last thing is managing issue and pull requests in Git Hub.
... Shawn will walk us through that.

Shawn: Nothing to add

Brent: Any other business
... Have a great weekend

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Company internal courses are out of scope
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2022/06/17 14:29:28 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
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/Do not allow company to add internal courses/Company internal courses are out of scope/
Succeeded: s/0/ [ me reminaing neutral ]/
Succeeded: s/ Full conference proceedings are out of scope/ Full conference schedule is out of scope/
Succeeded: s/with a proposal and question./with a proposal and any questions./
Succeeded: s/Letitia/Leticia/
Present: (no one), Sharron, krisanne, shawn, kevin, Howard, Michele, Daniel
Found Scribe: Mark
Found ScribeNick: MarkPalmer
Found Scribe: Brent
Found Scribe: Mark
Scribes: Mark, Brent
Found Date: 17 Jun 2022
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


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]