Meeting minutes
Starting meeting, choosing scribe
Descriptive transcripts needed to meet user needs https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/565#issuecomment-1192456293
dmontalvo: wants to know if everyone is ok with updates
<eoncons> +1 to add a basic definition to differentiate
eoncons: would be good to have a description for the different types of transcripts
<Howard> +1 sounds reasonable
<GN> +1
<slewth> +1
<CarlosD> +1
eoncons: since the type of transcript is technology dependent just wondering how far we should go into it
dmontalvo: I don't think we should dive that far in
Howard: we haven't talked much about deaf blind users and wonder how much it's mentioned in other WAI sections
<dmontalvo> https://
dmontalvo: it was not mentioned in the Curricula, but we have been recommended to update
… not hearing any strong objection
CarlosD: wondering if the part about providing a descriptive transcript you don't need to provide a basic transcript should be stressed more
… means you are saving effort
dmontalvo: not sure if it should be in the learning outcomes
… which are to understand how to meet all user needs
… could be part of teaching ideas or other introductory parts
eoncons: wondering if "Emphasize that creating descriptive transcripts is easier when starting with existing captions and description" covers Carlos' concerns
CarlosD: not sure that it does
… it's more about what's required, not necessarily ease
dmontalvo: will work to update with these ideas
Description of visual information types https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/569#issuecomment-1193109139
dmontalvo: recap of EO discussions
dmontalvo: does anyone have any concerns with how the types have been put together
eoncons: likes the separation, but there seems to be a missing alignment between the three bullet points in the media page
eoncons: understands the three media types as explained by Daniel, but missing the word "file" from the names - Integrated audio file, separate video file, separate file
… just a wording issue
dmontalvo: please put in github, if possible
Brent: is ok with how it is phrased on Curricula, but could see value in Estella's point
dmontalvo: all for making things more clear
… there was agreement that the Curricula approach is different because of a different audience
CarlosD: agrees with Estella, especially for the first bullet.
… clarifying that the third bullet could be either separate audio file or separate text file
eoncons: emphasizing that it's important in the media page to have good clarity because it is setting expectations
Remove reference to possible inaccessibility of authoring tools based on current instructor prerequisites https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/581#issuecomment-1183142720
dmontalvo: will work on clarifying wording
dmontalvo: proposing to remove mention of ensuring the authoring tools are accessible. any concerns with that?
<eoncons> +1 to Carlos
CarlosD: feels like the overview pages may have a wider audience than the specific pages, so would prefer to have some mention on the overview page with some cross reference to ATAG
<GN> +1 to Carlos
dmontalvo: the wider audience on the overview page is a valid point. may need to revisit with the EOWG
slewth: agree with Carlos, would be important for new teachers
… highlight that it is out of scope for curricula, but think the teachers would appreciate it
<Brent> +1 to Carlos and Sarah to leave in
+1
dmontalvo: perhaps removed too soon.
<Zakim> eoncons, you wanted to say that a mention to the version of the authoring tool should also be mentioned in relation to available accessibility features
eoncons: should mention that the version of the authoring tool should also be checked
… notes that many toolkits have this warning to check the accessibility of the tool and version of the tool
dmontalvo: concluding that mentioning authoring tool accessibility should remain
Descriptive transcripts needed to meet user needs https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/565#issuecomment-1192456293
Headings and their corresponding rank levels https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/structure/ dmontalvo]
dmontalvo: comment from surveys - issue with the phrase "headings and corresponding rank levels"
… originally wanted to be consistent with other resources, but now feel perhaps we should move forward with a change
… not sure if just removing "rank" is enough - is "headings and corresponding levels" sufficient
Brent: does rank level mean the tag <h1> <h2> etc?
dmontalvo: could mean either the tag or an aria level
… content authors are most likely going to be choosing from a group of heading levels
dmontalvo: hierarchical is another way to state it
<dmontalvo> Brian: The use of rank was never a way of describing heading levels. We talk about headings as a group, and of heading levels as a way of individualizing
<eoncons> Brian: As a developer, the use of rank was never described for heading levels.
<GN> +1 to Brian
Howard: could we use "corresponding level"
… not sure what providing consistent headings means
… is that referring to hierarchy?
dmontalvo: consistency was using the same heading structure on all related pages
Howard: instead of provide consistency, could be provide proper heading hierarchy and corresponding heading levels
dmontalvo: how do we feel about "hierarchy"
eoncons: because most content management systems would allow "heading 1", "heading 2" etc., perhaps some clarification on that could be good
Brent: outcome - "should be able to identify proper heading hierarchy"
… next point about consistency also should refer to hierarchy
… would put consistent headings as the first bullet, then explain how they help navigate, then provide proper hierarchy
dmontalvo: will work with removing "rank" but with some updates to the other points regarding hierarchy
Next Steps
dmontalvo: next two weeks there will not be a meeting (Aug 2, 9)