- From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 09:08:42 +0200
- To: Daniel Montalvo Charameli <dmontalvo@w3.org>
- Cc: wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Daniel, I’m unable to review the changes in detail, but I have skimmed the live draft and I’m OK with the changes there. I trust you to address the comments appropriately and in context with other comments. 👋 Eric > > On 23. Sep 2019, at 10:27, Daniel Montalvo Charameli <dmontalvo@w3.org> wrote: > > Hey Eric: > > > Thanks for these comments. > > > Some questions below. > > >> On 9/18/2019 6:36 PM, Eric Eggert via WBS Mailer wrote: >> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'WAI-Curricula: >> Draft Review for unit 3 "Business Case and Benefits"' (Education and >> Outreach Working Group) for Eric Eggert. >> >>> --------------------------------- >>> Overview >>> >>> ---- >>> This survey is for a first review of Unit 3: Business Case and Benefits >>> teaching unit, as part of the Introduction to Web Accessibility" teaching >>> module. >>> >>> Background: WAI Curricula Requirements Analysis >>> >>> Focus for your review: >>> * Are all topics covered well? Is anything missing? Is anything in there >>> that shouldn't be? >>> * Try to note any significant issues at this point, so we can address >>> them now. >>> * Comments on details, including wording, are welcome at this point. >>> Feel free to comment in the below edit boxes or to open a New GitHub >>> Issue >>> >>> Note: The review versions linked above will not change during the review >>> period. The editor will address some issues as they come in, so the live >>> draft might change during this review period. You might want to check >>> GitHub issues and the live updates before doing your review: Live draft - >>> Unit 3 - Business Case and Benefits >>> >> Comments: >> All comments for editor’s discretion, even if I feel strongly. >> I think this is a great draft and was really good to read. >> >> In general we should not use “the resource [resource name]” when >> linking to something as resource is WAI/EO jargon and makes the page harder >> to understand. If it is linked, it is a kind of resource. > > > Addressed in the live draft and will export to other units. > > >>> --------------------------------- >>> Review level and timing >>> >>> ---- >>> Please indicate below the level of consideration you were able to provide >>> for this review. If you were unable to get to it and would like more >>> time, please indicate that as well. Thanks! >>> >>> >> * (x) I read the material carefully >> * ( ) I skimmed the material >> >> * ( ) I need more time and have put a date below when I can get to it >> * ( ) I am not going to be able to review this material and will defer to >> the decisions of the group >> No comment. >> >>> --------------------------------- >>> Unit 3: Business Case and Benefits >>> >>> ---- >>> Focus on unit 3 Business Case and Benefits: >>> * Do you agree with the introduction, learning outcomes, and >>> competences? >>> * Do you think Learning Outcomes and Ideas for Assessment are coherent >>> and feasible? >>> * Do you agree with the wording, tone, and approach? >>> * Do you have other thoughts, suggestions, or comments? >>> Please feel free to comment in the below text box or open a dedicated >>> GitHub Issue for Unit 3 >>> >> Comments: >> The learning outcomes repeat “accessibility” a lot, two list items end >> with organization, this makes it relatively hard to skim and parse. No good >> idea what to do instead, so FYI. > > > I have reworded them and put them under a nested list. Are they easier to skim now? > > >> I don’t like how “Basic understanding” repeats under students in the >> “competencies” section. Maybe have a nested list there? > > > Done! Is it clearer now? > >> Teachers don’t need “Applied Experience in generating business benefits >> from accessibility.” First, it is debatable if there are benefits >> specifically from accessibility, second, most instructors won’t have that >> specific background. Most people in this group does not have that >> background. Requiring this skill feels a bit much. > > > I understand that "applied knowledge in *generating*" might be too much, but still I think we want to reinforce the idea that we need somebody who at least is able to demonstrate their knowledge. We don't want to imply that somebody who just read and teach this without being somehow involved in some of the benefits of accessibility is able to teach these contents properly. I did dropped the "generating", though.It reads now: > > * Applied knowledge of business benefits related to accessibility. > >>> --------------------------------- >>> Topic: Accessibility as a Driver for Innovation >>> >>> ---- >>> Focus on topic Accessibility as a Driver for Innovation: >>> * Do you agree with the introduction and learning outcomes? >>> * Do you think Learning Outcomes, Teaching Ideas, and Homework Ideas >>> are aligned? >>> * Do you think Teaching Ideas and Homework Ideas cover well the scope >>> of this topic? >>> * Do you agree with the wording, tone, and approach? >>> * Do you have further ideas or suggestions? >>> Please feel free to comment in the below text box or open a dedicated >>> GitHub Issue for Topic Accessibility as a Driver for Innovation >>> >> Comments: >> Teaching ideas, last bullet: >> >>> Provide analogies between digital accessibility, and social and >> architectural accessibility. For example, relate digital accessibility to >> the curb cut on sidewalk, which benefits people using strollers, bicycles, >> pushing carts, carrying luggage, etc. This concept is sometimes referred to >> as the electronic curb cut. >> >> I don’t know what “This concept” is? Providing analogies? Providing >> accessibility? I think the whole last sentence is unnecessary. > > > Removed. > >> --- >> >> Homework Ideas, first bullet: >> >>> Students search for publicly available accessibility testimonials and >> business case arguments from different organizations. Advise student that >> testimonials are often not easy to verify and may require further >> analysis. >> >> Is “searching” the homework? It feels to me that there is something >> that the students need to do with the researched information. > > > I did think of these activity as mainly researching for these testimonials. If we start narrowing it down and ask to build cases for their own organizations / universities / work places we might be getting into building a course (which we don't want). What is your feeling towards this activity? Don't you think just researching is a valid activity in the context of an accessibility curriculum? Further tweaks are to come for Assessment / Homework Ideas, so I welcome your thoughts on this. > >>> --------------------------------- >>> Topic: Broader Benefits >>> >>> ---- >>> Focus on topic Broader Benefits: >>> * Do you agree with the introduction and learning outcomes? >>> * Do you think Learning Outcomes, Teaching Ideas, and Homework Ideas >>> are aligned? >>> * Do you think Teaching Ideas and Homework Ideas cover well the scope >>> of this topic? >>> * Do you agree with the wording, tone, and approach? >>> * Do you have further ideas or suggestions? >>> Please feel free to comment in the below text box or open a dedicated >>> GitHub Issue for Topic Broader Benefits >>> >>> >> Comments: >> I feel strongly uncomfortable linking to the archived old business case and >> presenting it as fact as it is in this section. I think it is decremental >> for teachers to link to such an outdated document (WCAG 1.0) and might >> actually introduce false assumptions about accessibility. > > > This reference has been removed from this paragraph. > >> --- >> >>> Explain how accessibility helps build high-quality products by meeting >> technical standards. >> >> Meeting technical standards does not mean having high quality products. I >> can meet WCAG with really terrible products. Many people do. Valid HTML >> doesn't mean your product is high-quality, too. > > > I get that it might not be *high* quality, but at least we might agree that meeting WCAG would allow a greater number of users to use this product than if it wouldn't meet WCAG, right? We can say then that by meeting WCAG we make products available for more people than if we don't, can't we? > >> >> --- >> >>> Explain how accessibility implementations can help reduce overall >> development and maintenance costs. >> >> We don’t have reliable evidence for that (hence only the old business >> case mentions it, the new one does not). Just making things accessible does >> not drive down cost, many companies will see significant investment before >> having an accessible product and then it will take a long time to break >> even. (We had that discussion when we developed the new business case.) > > > It is true that the development has to be done anyway, be it accessible or not, though. I do see that we can use "maintenance and remediation". What if you choose an authoring tool that meets ATAG and another one that does not meet ATAG. Chances are that you run into more costly actions if you need to implement accessibility in a product that you create using the authoring tool that does not meet ATAG, right?. It reads now: > > > * Explain how accessibility implementations can help reduce overall maintenance and remediation costs. > > > Do you agree with this? > > >> >> --- >> >> Teaching ideas, last bullet: >> >>> Reflect with students about how accessibility can reduce development time >> if implemented from the beginning, e.g., when changing presentational >> aspects of a page. Contrast the amount of time it takes to make such >> changes in an accessible and in an inaccessible page. >> >> Changing CSS on a page is as complicated, no matter how accessible the page >> is. There are inaccessible pages that can be easily restyled and accessible >> ones where it is very hard. > > > I have reoriented this activity to: > > > * Reflect about how accessibility can reduce design and development time if implemented from the beginning, e.g., when selecting a specific CMS for a project. Contrast the amount of time it takes to implement accessibility depending on CMS support. > >>> --------------------------------- >>> Topic: Minimizing Legal Risk >>> >>> ---- >>> Focus on topic Minimizing Legal Risk: >>> * Do you agree with the introduction and learning outcomes? >>> * Do you think Learning Outcomes, Teaching Ideas, and Homework Ideas >>> are aligned? >>> * Do you think Teaching Ideas and Homework Ideas cover well the scope >>> of this topic? >>> * Do you agree with the wording, tone, and approach? >>> * Do you have further ideas or suggestions? >>> Please feel free to comment in the below text box or open a dedicated >>> GitHub Issue for Topic Minimizing Legal Risk >>> >>> >> Comments: >> No comments for this section. >> >>> --------------------------------- >>> Any other Thoughts/suggestions? >>> >>> ---- >>> Any other thoughts or suggestions? >>> >>> >> Comments: >> >> >>> These answers were last modified on 18 September 2019 at 16:35:39 U.T.C. >>> by Eric Eggert >>> >> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at >> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/unit3draftreview/ until 2019-09-18. >> >> Regards, >> >> The Automatic WBS Mailer >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2019 07:08:47 UTC