RE: [wbs] response to 'Curriculum "Developing Accessible Content" -- Monkey Review'

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the updates, I have put some comments responding to your questions below.

Kevin

Kevin White
Head of Digital Accessibility
Phone – 07827 991 786

> > Comments:
> > I think there is scope to include something on understanding why
> > custom widgets prove problematic and highlighting the risks in using some attributes,
> such as 'role'
> 
> Probably most of this was not coming through clearly in the current iteration. I have
> reworded learning outcomes for module and topic. Now they read.


... 8<...


> Does this address your points here? Any other ways in which you think this could be
> better communicated?


Yes, looks good.


> > Comments:
> > There are a number of points that suggest WAI-ARIA i native elements
> > can't be used. I wonder if there might be a need to include something of learning
> outcome around understanding why this can be problematic and what is involved in
> taking this approach.
> 
> I have included a new learning outcome for module
> 
> * identify the benefits of using HTML native elements to the extent possible for broader
> compatibility with assistive technologies and adaptive strategies
> 
> That focuses on the general preference of HTML over ARIA. Instead of saying Aria can
> be dangerous, we say HTML native markup is preferred. Are you comfortable with this
> wording?



Principle is good but I think the wording is slightly off. Maybe:

* outline the benefits of using HTML native elements for compatibility with assistive technologies and adaptive strategies




> > Additional Comments:
> > I wonder if there is a slight elephant in the room: many front end
> > developers don't code in HTML but use a framework such as React. This
> > means they aren't building pages in the ways outlined in these courses and may
> consider it not relevant to them. Do we need to acknowledge this in some way?
> 
> I am not sure if I understand correctly. Is it the word "Code" that is around in many
> learning outcomes that may be problematic? Would it help if we acknowledge that these
> coding techniques that we provide can (and should) also be implemented at a framework
> level for the framework to produce accessible code?

I have spoken with front end developers who don't know how to code in HTML. They write everything in React were quite surprised when I pointed out that that was translated into HTML.

I might be overly worried about this but just something that has been problematic when speaking with a number of developers in the past.

> 
> > May be can of worms that I have opened previously but, are these all
> > optional topics? Or are they suggested topics? If they are all optional then what is
> necessary?
> Good point. These are now "Topics to achieve the learning outcomes" as topics are all
> necessary to support the teaching sequence.


Perfect


********************************************************************** 
This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately by return.
Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
**********************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2020 09:33:25 UTC