[EOWG] Responses to Questionnaire Accessibility Course List Eagle Review

Dear Hidde,

We would first like to thank you for taking the time to contribute to improving this resource.

We have received valuable feedback and some of the suggestions have already been incorporated into the tool, others have been added to our to-do list for the next development stages, and others may need further discussion.

The updated version is currently available at: https://614c42623e94470008d04ab1--wai-list-of-courses.netlify.app/list-of-courses/

A brief summary of all the updates made is available at:
https://github.com/leticiaseixas/wai-list-of-courses/blob/914a8c32080caa4175f874ec5df8ded53f867132/README.md


Following is the list of the answers you have provided in the Eagle Review Survey with our comments for each one of them. Let us know if you have any further considerations or additional clarifications on any topic are needed.

Responses will also be included on the corresponding github issues.



  *   Attributes for describing offers


     *   # I feel it is quite a lot of data.

We have included an expand/collapse all button, and reorganized the layout of offers details, in order to have the name and the corresponding value on the same line, reducing the display size of this list.


     *   # I am not sure what “WAI Curricula correspondence“, “Platform” mean.

We have changed the attribute to “WAI Curricula module” and, when provided, linked the corresponding page of the Curricula.
“Platform” is the learning software infrastructure used for online courses. Based on the example values provided, is it intuitive enough?


     *   # Maybe “Date of last information update” would make sense to go outside this list and display underneath in italics and/or smaller font size, in sentence form, eg “This information was last updated on [date]”. Maybe instead of “Date of last update to course contents” use “Course last updated”

We have changed both attributes to be displayed at the bottom of the section as:
This information was last updated on [date].
The content of this offer was last updated on [date].


     *   # I'm not sure if “reviews” is a good attribute if the review page is on the vendor's website... it could be abused by creating a page full of very positive but fake reviews. I mildly feel a link to just the course website would be sufficient. In that case, I would suggest “Website” as the attribute name

The “Reviews page” attribute was a much-discussed inclusion suggestion made on the Requirement Analysis survey. While it is possible to have manipulated data on it, this is also true for the rest of the information provided. This issue highlights the importance of having a disclaimer informing users that “W3C does not verify the accuracy of the information”. Although, while the moderation for the inclusion of new offers is an ongoing discussion, we plan to have a list maintainer to verify the accuracy of information provided even if it consists of a simple fact-check on the providers website.


  *   Filter categories


     *   I really like them, they make a lot of sense.


     *   # Instead of “Offer type”, I feel we could consider “Type”, because all of them are about the offer (and we don't have Offer Cost, Offer Format, etc)

Changed to “Type”.


     *   # Within “Offer type”, I'm not sure about “non-credit”. Isn't that a criterion that could apply to each of the other types? (like you could do an undergrad course with credits, or one without credits...) Also, typing this, I think I'm not sure if I got the meaning of credits (maybe that's useful feedback on its own).

We have reviewed this category. Current attributes for defining an offer are: Graduate program, Undergraduate program, Training program, Professional certification, and Other.


  *   Landing page


     *   I'm not sure from the survey which page is considered the landing page. I feel “Submit new course” would make sense on this list page. Having it visible helps communate that this is a list people can submit to, that it contains user submitted data, which is an important point.

We do agree with this suggestion, as well as the majority of the respondents. We’ll be following that approach in further developments.


  *   Additional comments


     *   I would remove the “Important Disclaimer” box, maybe put the content on a different page if “offers are user-submitted, not W3C-endorsed” misses any important aspect. I don't think it misses anything that essential. Below I have added some analysis for each sentence to support that point.


        *   “W3C does not endorse specific vendor products. Inclusion of products in this list does not indicate endorsement by W3C. ” this says the same thing twice, and is in itself already captured by “not W3C-endorsed“ above
        *
        *   “The information can change at any time.” this is the case for the web at large and not something that needs disclaiming (unless this page looks like it is a law or standard (eg a /TR page), which it doesn't)
        *
        *   “Offer descriptions, search criteria, and other information in this database is provided by offers providers. ” - this is already captured in “are user- submitted”
        *
        *   “Products and search criteria are listed with no quality rating.“ - this is not implied anywhere, there is no meta data that says “Quality” or anything that suggests quality rating has been done.
        *
        *   “The list is not a review of offers, nor a complete or definitive list of all offers.”. - “not a review of offers”, see above, I feel this is similar to “no quality rating”. “nor a complete or definitive list of all offers” - if we're really worried about this, why not add to the sentence at the top: “offers are user-submitted, not W3C-endorsed. This list is not complete”

The disclaimer provided follows other WAI resources and, for this, we believe any further improvements or updates on this disclaimer should be brought to a higher level of discussion. We will include a review on this disclaimer as an open issue, since other similar resources are currently being updated, this would be a good opportunity to evaluate whether any changes are necessary in a broader context.


Thank you for your time and we look forward to hearing your comments.

Best,
Letícia

---
Letícia Seixas Pereira
LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa