RE: [wbs] response to 'Curricula -- Designer Modules Eagle Review'

Hey Gerhard,

No problem at all, now I do understand your point.

I think we need to find a proper balance between designers explaining the job to developers and designers providing the necessary information to developers so that they can do their job properly.

When it comes to defining and implementing headings, for example, the designer should be aware that it is not just the visuals which define the heading, but also there needs to be code so that the heading is perceived by all users.

When dealing with tables, for example, the developer may need assistance from the designer on which specific table cells they need to code as table headers.

Interesting point anyway, I need to think about this more. We may discuss this in a future TF meeting.

Thanks for raising!

Best.
--

Daniel Montalvo

Accessibility Education and Training Specialist
W3C/WAI

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerhard Nussbaum <Gerhard.Nussbaum@ki-i.at>
> Sent: miércoles, 7 de abril de 2021 11:33
> To: Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org>
> Subject: AW: [wbs] response to 'Curricula -- Designer Modules Eagle Review'
> 
> Hello Daniel!
> 
> I think, the developers (in best case) are able to implement the designs given by the designers in a WCAG 2.1 conform way. Especially if the
> developers did attend a course following the WAI Developer Curricula. The designers should not have to explain the job to developers.
> 
> I think we need to separate the roles a bit, otherwise curriculum will be overloaded and the designers might be overwhelmed. Very often
> designers do not have any clue about implementation techniques. Currently the designer curricula goes very deep. And if designers should
> e.g. know how to implement tables the training stuff goes even deeper.
> 
> Designer should be able to create accessible designs which developers can implement in an accessible way without lots of further questions.
> 
> And it’s the same with developers and authors.
> 
> I hope, my comments are a bit more clear now. Sorry for being a bit fuzzy in the answers of the questionnaire.
> 
> Best
> Gerhard
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org>
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. April 2021 11:03
> > An: Gerhard Nussbaum <Gerhard.Nussbaum@ki-i.at>
> > Cc: 'wai-eo-editors' <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
> > Betreff: RE: [wbs] response to 'Curricula -- Designer Modules Eagle Review'
> >
> > Hello Gerhard,
> >
> > Thanks for going through the survey. I have general questions based on
> > the comments you made about the following learning outcomes.
> >
> > > identify related requirements for developers to ensure that headings
> > > are coded appropriately and are nested according to the hierarchical
> > structure of the page -> IMO, its going to far.
> > > describe related requirements for developers to make language of
> > > page and language of parts programmatically determined -> its going to far?
> > > describe related requirements for developers to ensure that table
> > > header and data cells are programmatically associated ->  IMO, its
> > > going to
> > far.
> > > identify related requirements for developers to ensure alternatives
> > > and descriptions are programmatically associated to their
> > > corresponding
> > component ->  IMO, its going to far.
> > > identify related requirements for developers to ensure that
> > > properties of custom user interface components, such as names,
> > > states, and instructions
> > are perceived visually and can be programmatically determined ->  its
> > going to far?
> > > identify related requirements for developers to ensure that labels
> > > and instructions are programmatically associated to their
> > > corresponding user
> > interface component ->  IMO, its going to far.
> > >
> >
> > These learning outcomes try to act as a cross-reference. They are
> > there for the designer to be conscious that he can count on the
> > developer for these coding aspects with which designers might not be
> > very familiar. What is exactly what you think is going too far here?
> > Is it the level of detail we are providing? Is it the
> > "describe/identify related requirements" part that might be too hard from a designer's perspective?
> >
> > > describe related requirements for content authors to provide texts
> > > that do not require reading ability more advanced than the lower
> > > secondary
> > education level -> IMO, its going to far.
> >
> > I am assuming you think we are going too far here because:
> >
> > * this is linked to a AAA SC
> > * it would not be possible in all scenarios to provide such texts.
> >
> > Are these assumptions right?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best.
> > --
> >
> > Daniel Montalvo
> >
> > Accessibility Education and Training Specialist W3C/WAI
> >

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2021 10:09:41 UTC