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

Hey Andrew,

Please see my proposals below.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Arch via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
> Sent: martes, 15 de diciembre de 2020 0:30
> To: dmontalvo@w3.org; shadi+eosurvey@w3.org
> Subject: [wbs] response to '[Curricula] Review of changes before Butterfly Approval'
> 
> General changes
> 
> Comments:
> I wasn't sure about 'recite' vs 'summarise' - but the logic make sense

It seems we still need to find the write approach for this type of learning outcomes. Maybe neither "recite" nor "summarize". I am leaning now to communicate that developers need to relate the acquired knowledge with other roles and responsibilities, instead of "summarize" or "recite".

> > Changes in module 3: Images
> I'll still argue that "write adequate text alternatives for images"
> (Learning Outcomes)  is not a Dev's job, but a content job - that does becomes clear in "Topic: Text Alternatives"

I think developers often have the primary responsibility for writing alternative texts, especially for some types of images such as functional. We could make it clear in the learning outcome that the developer is not alone for this task but can collaborate with other roles to write text alternatives. We would have something like:

"collaborate with designers and content authors to mark up and write adequate text alternatives for images"

Would that address your concern here?
> > ---------------------------------
> > Changes in module 5: Forms
> Is "recite related requirements for content authors and designers" in Learning Outcome's intended to include linear / single col forms for
> easier use by screen magnifier users in particular?

I don't think we should get into such level of detail in this particular curriculum. Definitely worth exploring in the designers' curricula (planned for 20201).

Best.

--

Daniel Montalvo

Accessibility Education and Training Specialist
W3C/WAI

Received on Friday, 18 December 2020 10:20:52 UTC