[EOWG] Responses to Questionnaire Accessibility Course List Eagle Review

Dear Michele,

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.



  *   Attributes for describing offers


     *   The expanded list was longer than expected (and hard to scroll down after a while) and I'm not sure how helpful it would be once a person describes their course (which will presumably be a paragraph and could possibly cover some of these topics such as language, country, and if there's a cost). I'm not sure there needs to be an expand/collapse so much as a link to that site where presumably the company already has a one-pager about their course.


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. Concerning the relevance of having specific attributes besides the description, we believe it is important to standardize these results and details provided (which will also allow filtering offers). The additional description is useful for providers to include additional information not covered by the current attributes or a brief summary about their offers.



  *   Filter categories


     *   Overall makes sense to have Filters. Here's my comments on each one:


     *   "Offer type" - this was initially confusing as I wouldn't be able to necessarily take an "undergrad" or "graduate" course outside of being enrolled at that school. Is this saying that I can find schools and bootcamps that offer accessibility as part of their curriculum? I ask because that feels very different than a page showing resources for training, such as corporate training. I also think "Offer type" doesn't seem to apply to these categories; that wording makes me think it's more about pricing structure - like there's a sale price.


We have reviewed the “Offer type” category, as well as the degree of certification category. Current attributes for defining an offer are: Graduate program, Undergraduate program, Training program, Professional certification, and Other. In addition, in further developments we will  explore modulable offers, i.e., offers that are part of a broader program, such as a course on "Universal Design" that is part of a Web Design professional training. A side note on this topic, at least in Europe, some Universities offer the possibility of people taking a course under an Undergraduate or Graduate program without being enrolled at that school.


     *   "Target role" seems on-point to me; there may be other types or wording but feels good for this stage. May also want to explain what might be covered differently per each role so people can be sure they're properly filtering. "Level" - love. Seems more applicable than "offer type" as well.


We received some wording suggestions and we renamed the “Target role” category to “Audience”. We believe that further explanation for each item could be cumbersome and outside of the scope of this resource. However, on the next survey we plan to have a more specific question about which items could benefit from an additional info button - considering the pros and cons of including an additional element on the interface.


     *   "Format" - makes sense though I only just recently learned what "hybrid" was so may want to explain that one.


Considering the feedback received, we believe that some of the items were not clear enough. The changes we have made aim to make this information more intuitive so that we reduce the need for any additional information. In this sense, we will further discuss in future surveys which items can benefit from an associated info button with a sort of glossary.


     *   "Cost" - "Free for limited time" seems problematic depending on how often this page is updated. Feels like this information might grow old fast. "Free or reduced fee for some" feels kind of niche and not clear. "For fee" feels oddly worded. Perhaps a better way to filter is just to offer "free only" as an option and people can either put in courses that are free or paid, and explain any parameters in their course details.


“Free for limited time” is intended to denominate offers such as those providing a free sample - based on content or duration. We renamed this option to “Free for limited content or duration”.


     *   “Free or reduced fee for some” reflects some current offers that provide reduced values for people with disabilities, domestic/international fees, or member/non-member fees.


“For fee” modified to “Paid”.

Finally, the “Cost” category now includes the following options: Free, Free with certificates for purchase, Free for limited content or duration, Free or reduced fee for some, Paid.


     *   The filters feel a little long but do seem to fit what people might want to search on.


The filters are intended to provide the main items people might want to search on, and an advanced filtering resource is planned for further developments. Feel free to suggest different arrangements on which filter should belong on each filtering resource (default x advanced).


  *   Landing page


     *   I think showing a list of unfiltered courses on this page will be problematic because, no matter what, having a course listed first on this page is going to carry some weight. That then comes with a lot of responsibility and I don't know if being something like Google is the right/intended outcome. However, this speaks to a bigger set of questions I have about this project which I'll put in the "Additional Comments" section.


Response on “Additional Comments” section.


  *   Additional comments


     *   While I completely understand why this team would want to do this project, I also have severe reservations about it. In particular, I think the current "Open Issues" in the requirements are my main concerns - how is this going to be reviewed and maintained?


At the requirement analysis for this list, we had an initial discussion with EO Chairs on this subject. Our current proposal stands on the following process: Submission of new offers are made by providers through a submit form. This submission triggers a notification to the list mainteners, in charge of verifying the accuracy of information provided. This approval triggers an update on the list entries. Further details on this process will be the focus of the next stage of development, comprising the submit form, i.e., management of entries.


     *   The page already feels contradictory in that it says listings do not constitute an endorsement - and yet it's on a W3C page. It gives me pause as a consumer to say, "So am I supposed to trust this and use it, or not?" I also fear that unscrupulous companies will exploit the implied endorsement.


Similar to other WAI resources such as the Authoring Tools List or the Evaluation Tools List (https://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/), this resource aims to provide a centralized resource for people to find more information about accessibility related courses. 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 the three resources are currently being updated, this would be a good opportunity to evaluate whether any changes are necessary in a broader context.


     *   Also, if the information is not kept up-to-date the page won't feel useful either. While some courses might be well established, others might list things like webinars or bootcamp courses that aren't as stable (or at least have shifting URLs).


While we may not ensure that providers are going to keep this information updated, we will provide the resources needed to edit any entries, at any moment. In this sense, each offer also contains the date on which that information was last updated, which allows users to evaluate whether or not the offer is relevant to them. Finally, we will further include an option to order by most recent/last updated offers.


     *   Finally, as mentioned in my comments about the landing page, is this going to turn into a page where people want to pay to be listed on the home page or at the top of results? If so, how will that be handled? If not (which I presume is the case), how then would you prevent that? Overall I'm just not quite clear on some of the key factors and it's giving me a lot of pause.


The inclusion of offers in this list is completely free of charge. In order to make the ordering criteria more clear, the list is currently being displayed in alphabetical order according to the title provided. We will further include an option to order by most recent/last updated offers.




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