RE: [wbs] response to '[Curricula] Review of changes before Butterfly Approval'

Hey Kevin,

Happy to provide you with diffs. Which would be your preferred diff system? Would you be comfortable with an ordinary GitHub diff view? If so, you can find it at
https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/pull/273/files/

If you don't feel comfortable with the above, let me know and I will generate a diff view for each page using the HTML diff service.

Best.
--

Daniel Montalvo

Accessibility Education and Training Specialist
W3C/WAI

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin White via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
> Sent: lunes, 14 de diciembre de 2020 17:48
> To: dmontalvo@w3.org; shadi+eosurvey@w3.org
> Subject: [wbs] response to '[Curricula] Review of changes before Butterfly Approval'
> 
> The following answers have been successfully submitted to '[Curricula] Review of changes before Butterfly Approval' (Accessibility
> Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)) for Kevin White.
> 
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Introduction
> >
> > ----
> > This is another thorough review survey to discuss changes resulting
> > from:
> >      * EOWG Monkey Review survey.
> >          * Brainstorm for Clarifying curricula titles survey
> >          * Approval of changes after thorough review Task Force survey
> >          * EOWG discussion 30 October
> >          * EOWG discussion 6 November
> >     Preview with proposed changes is at:
> >
> https://deploy-preview-273--wai-curricula.netlify.com/curricula/developer-modules/
> >
> >
> > Main changes include:
> >      * Rewritten overview page based on requirements analysis for
> > supporting materials
> >          * Added Module 7: Rich applications, to better clarify scope
> > for accessible rich applications
> >          * Streamlined learning outcomes to better relate to
> > accessibility requirements
> >          * Define accessibility related terms such as simple and
> > complex images and tables consistently throughout the resource
> >          * Qualify specific situations where several techniques can be
> > used to provide labels or descriptions, such as alternative texts for
> > images, table descriptions, or labels for forms and controls
> >          * Renamed some modules to better reflect their actual content
> >          * Renamed topics and reorganized their contents to facilitate
> > teaching sequence
> >     The following questions will guide you through the most
> > significant changes. Please provide any specific feedback you have,
> > especially if you don't agree with the proposed changes.
> >
> >
> Comments:
> Given the range of changes indicated it would have been useful to have a diff or two linked in the survey - I was left re-reading the whole of
> previous sections that had been previously reviewed with little memory of what was there previously. This was most problematic in the
> changes to existing modules.
> 
> Actually, I am stopping at Module 2 - I am concerned I am going over previous ground without knowing what has changed. If you can
> provide diffs I will look at it :)
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > General Changes
> >
> > ----
> > The following is a list of general changes affecting the whole resource.
> >
> >      * Changed introductory paragraph at the top of each of the
> > modules from "Courses based on this module:" to "Courses based on this
> > module should:" Example at Introduction for module 1Rationale: This
> > clarifies that the below bullets are expected goals or objectives for
> > the courses and not actual courses that we are listing.
> >      * Changed order of bullets in the introductory paragraphs for
> > each of the modulesExample at Introduction for module 1Rationale: New
> > order better reflects how accessible coding benefits people with disabilities.
> >      * Changed "summarize" to "recite" when providing sign posting
> > references to other roles responsibilities in learning
> > outcomes.Rationale: It better communicates the importance of knowing
> > such requirements, instead of just summarizing them.
> >      * Change explanatory sentence at the "topics to teach level":from
> > "Optional topics to achieve the learning outcomes"to "Topics to
> > achieve the learning outcomes".Rationale: A specific order or teaching
> > method is not required, but all topics are recommended for the teaching sequence.
> >      * Changed idea to assess knowledge for module: "Practical —
> > Students are guided to use mechanisms that assistive technologies
> > provide to [...]"
> >     from "Short answer questions"
> >     to "Practical",
> >     Rationale: It better reflects the assessment type.
> >     Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue on
> > general changes
> >
> >
> >
> Comments:
> * "recite" isn't really the right word. I think the phrase is that "students should know related requirements..." but that doesn't quite fit with
> the opening statement for the lists. Perhaps, "describe" would be good or maybe better would "detail".
> 
> * "Topics to achieve the learning outcomes" seems to be "Topics to support the teaching sequence". The former is certainly better than the
> latter.
> 
> * [Minor] The assessments include the phrase "Students are guided to use..." it seems a bit... off. If it is an assessment students wouldn't be
> guided in anything. Would the be asked to demonstrate?
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > [New] Module 7: Rich Applications
> >
> > ----
> > Module 7: Rich Applications has been added to clarify scope for rich
> > applications, such as Single Page Applications (SPA), and others
> > generated by JavaScript.
> > This is a thorough review of this module.
> > What you're reviewing is everything in the final draft.
> >  * This is EOWG's pre-publication review, our internal "last call".
> >  * Review and comment on anything and everything, including
> > copy-editing as needed.
> >  * Speak now or forever hold your peace.We hope there will not be any
> > more new comments after this review.For more details about EOWG's
> > review process, check Review Stages and Levels Please provide comments
> > in the below box or open a GitHub issue about module 7
> >
> >
> Comments:
> * ", which may each be individual widgets" - not sure what this adds other than a bit more of a challenge to parse the sentence.  I think it
> could be better explored in the detail than introducing it in the topic introduction.
> 
> * There seems to be a lot of repeated content between Structure and Relationships and Module 1. I am not sure what the learning outcome
> really is or how this relates to RIA? Not saying that it isn't necessary just a bit unclear as to why it is being repeated.
> 
> * First teaching idea seems to be using a disclosure widget as the example for navigation. I wonder if this is too limiting and doesn't
> illustrate how structural elements and regions help navigation.
> 
> * Use of aria-hidden - I have seen this being used to present two different sets of content; one visually but not in the accessibility tree, and
> one non-visually but in the accessibility (using e.g. sr-only CSS). Worth mentioning?
> 
> * Structure and Relationships ideas to assess asks students to code for updates, but the learning outcomes don't actually cover this - there
> may be a need for something specific along the lines of "code applications to update structure and/or semantics in response to user action"
> 
> * Topic: Keyboard and Focus Interactions - is this more about "Keyboard and Focus Management"?
> 
> * Is there a need to add a learning outcome around focus management for inline error messages on form submission?
> 
> * "Mention that setting focus to the most relevant place in a rich application is a shared responsibility among different team members:
> designers and developers" - It may not be apparent what each responsibility is. Maybe something more explicit like (sorry, wording may
> need work) "Outline the designer responsibility to describe the next logical interaction and developer responsibility to ensure that focus is
> managed accordingly".
> 
> * "Demonstrate the use of mechanisms to obtain information about the available keyboard shortcuts" - is this about demonstrating ways to
> communicate this rather than ways that it might be found? As it is written it hints that there are some standard ways that you can find out
> about keyboard shortcuts in applications. New one on me if there is such methods?
> 
> * "Explain that specific focus treatment should be applied to the contents that are not part of the modal dialog as long as it is displayed so
> that they are not reachable using the keyboard" - not sure what this is getting at.
> 
> * "identify and code status messages that may not originate from any particular widget or part of the application" - not sure why or where
> such messages would come from then?
> 
> * Is there something missing in notifications to discuss the different specialized live region roles such as log, status?
> 
> * Not sure the first teaching idea in notifications is that great. If the goal is to explore live regions being used to indicate progress of change
> then I think an example like an address look up or making a data request from another source would be more appropriate.
> 
> * The second teaching idea in notifications mentions modal windows and alerts on warnings which would require interactions. I don't know
> that I would use a live region in this case as I don't just want the user to be informed, I would need them to do something - so it would be a
> modal dialog with an active choice. What about confirmation messages as a teaching idea or a chat bot... oh, those are all the rage!
> 
> * Again, not sure I would code a quit prevention using a live region - I would do it with a modal and focus management. What about
> students coding a progress bar?
> 
> * Not sure what the second assessment idea is at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in Module 1: Page Structure
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at module 1 page structure, specifically focusing
> > in the following:
> >  * Changed module and topic titles. Current proposal is:
> >      * Module 1: Page Structure
> >        * Topic: Section Headings
> >        * Topic: Sections of Content
> >        * Topic: Page Regions
> >        * Topic: Page Composition
> >
> >  * Added or reworded learning outcomes for module.
> >  * Added and reworded learning outcomes for topics "Section Headings",
> > "Sections of Content", "Page Regions", and "Page Composition".
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> * "explain how headings, including their rank levels, are used by different types of assistive technologies, such as text to speech, and
> adaptive strategies, such as custom stylesheets, to allow people with disabilities to understand and navigate the content" - too many 'such
> as' structures.
> Possibly "explain how headings and their rank levels are used by different types of assistive technologies and adaptive strategies, such as
> text to speech or custom stylesheets, to allow people with disabilities to understand and navigate content". Of just dump the 'such as ..'
> entirely.
> 
> * "explain how properly coded page regions can be presented in different ways, including being read aloud using text-to-speech
> technologies, with custom or without any styling, and in different screen and text sizes" - this is used in a couple of the learning outcomes. I
> think I get what it means but I might struggle to actually teach to that. Might benefit from a clearer outcome?
> 
> * "code the primary language of web pages to allow correct processing by assistive technologies" - correct processing or correct
> pronunciation?
> 
> * "code distinguishable focus indicators, for example by using the CSS :focus selector" - this seems out of place here but I am not sure
> where else it might go? - actually, reading the topic introduction I am beginning to think that the topic title could benefit from a change. It
> seems to be a catch all around orientation and navigation rather than composition. I think of 'composition' as the action written word.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in Module 2: Menus
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at module 2 Menus specifically focusing on the
> > following:
> >  * Changed module and topic titles. Current proposal is:
> >      * Module 2: Menus
> >        * Topic: Menu Structure
> >        * Topic: Menu Styling
> >        * Topic: Fly-out Menus
> >        * Topic: Application Menus
> >
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
> > knowledge for topics "Menu Structure", "Menu Styling", "Fly-Out Menus"
> > and "Application Menus".
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> * Additional learning outcome "Code menus such that menu state is communicated" - or some such. This might be embedded in use by
> assistive technologies?
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in module 3: Images
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at module 3 Images specifically focusing on the
> > following:
> >  * Changed module and topic titles, as well as reorganized topic
> > contents. Current proposal is:
> >      * Module 3: Images
> >        * Topic: Text Alternatives
> >        * Topic: Functional Images
> >        * Topic: Complex Images
> >
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
> >  * Content related to images of text moved to topic "Complex Images"
> > (was previously under topic "Simple Images")
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
> > knowledge for topics "Text Alternatives", "Functional Images", and
> > "Complex Images".
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in module 4: Tables
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at module 3 Images specifically focusing on the
> > following:
> >  * Changed module and topic titles. Current proposal is:
> >    * Module 4: Tables
> >        * Topic: Simple Tables
> >        * Topic: Complex Tables
> >        * Topic: Table Descriptions
> >
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
> > knowledge for topics "Simple Tables", "Complex Tables", and "Table
> > Descriptions".
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in module 5: Forms
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at module 5 Forms specifically focusing on the
> > following:
> >  * Changed module and topic titles, as well as reorganized topic
> > contents. Current proposal is:
> >    * Module 5: Forms
> >        * Topic: Controls and Labels
> >        * Topic: Instructions
> >        * Topic: Notifications
> >
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
> >  * Content moved to topics "Instructions" and "Notifications" (was
> > previously under topic "Time Limits" now removed).
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
> > knowledge for topics "Control Labels", "Instructions", and
> > "Notifications".
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in module 6: Custom Widgets
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at module 6 Custom Widgets specifically focusing on
> > the following:
> >  * Changed module and topic titles, as well as reorganized topic
> > contents. Current proposal is:
> >    * Module 6: Custom Widgets
> >        * Topic: Role Definitions
> >        * Topic: Accessible Names and Descriptions
> >        * Topic: States and Properties
> >        * Topic: Keyboard and Focus Management
> >
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes for module.
> >  * Content related to live regions partly moved to topic "States and
> > Properties", and partly expanded in new module 7, Rich Applications
> > (was previously under Topic "Live Regions" now removed).
> >  * Reworded learning outcomes, teaching ideas, and ideas to assess
> > knowledge for topics "Role Definitions", "Accessible Names and
> > Descriptions", "States and Properties", and "Keyboard and Focus
> > Interactions".
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in Developer Modules overview page
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at Developer Modules overview page specifically
> > focusing on overall wording to outline the curricula contents.
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> Looks good
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in Curricula on Web Accessibility overview page
> >
> > ----
> > Please have a look at Curricula on Web Accessibility page specifically
> > focusing on the following:
> >  * Changes in structure resulting from EOWG discussions
> >  * Overall wording and tone
> > Is there anything from these changes that you would disagree with?
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> * "This resource provides a variety of teaching modules that you can combine to create different courses on web accessibility" - I would say
> it provides outlines for a variety of teaching modules. Just trying to ensure that people don't think these are the complete modules.
> 
> * "suitable for everybody in IT" - not sure about "IT", I know plenty of people who would benefit from this training who wouldn't consider
> themselves to be working in IT - content designers, service designers, graphic designers, interaction designers. They would say they work in
> "digital". This is probably one of those areas that there is a wide variety in.
> 
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Additional comments
> >
> > ----
> > Please provide any other additional comments or suggestions you may
> > want to see addressed before we bring the curriculum back to the whole
> > EOWG for Butterfly Approval (Approval to publish) survey.
> >
> > Please provide comments on the below box or open a GitHub issue
> >
> Comments:
> 
> 
> >
> > These answers were last modified on 14 December 2020 at 16:46:39 U.T.C.
> > by Kevin White
> >
> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/curricula-review-before-butterfly/
> until 2020-12-15.
> 
>  Regards,
> 
>  The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Monday, 14 December 2020 17:05:21 UTC