Re: [wbs] response to 'Curricula -- Checking overall structure for Designer Modules'

Hi Daniel,

Yes, I don't have any issues with sticking to "Images and Graphics" and
"Multimedia and Animations". I was just trying to be coherent in the way we
name the modules, but I understand your concerns regarding the length of
the titles.

Cheers,
Carlos

On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 08:32, Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello Carlos,
>
> Thanks for your below comments.
>
> I am planning to implement your suggestions regarding module names and
> language. Just a clarification with regards to your suggestions for module
> names.
>
> I think "Visual Design", "Information Design", and "Forms Design" work
> well. "Navigation Design" and "Interaction Design" could go with or without
> the "Design", but I am happy to add those for now. " on the contrary, I
> think Images and Graphics Design" and "Multimedia and Animations Design" do
> not work really well. Images, graphics, multimedia and animations are
> themselves recognizable concepts. Adding "Design" makes these titles
> lengthy and difficult to read.
>
> Would you be OK with "Images and Graphics" and "Multimedia and Animations"
> without "design"?
>
> Best.
>
> --
>
> Daniel Montalvo
>
> Accessibility Education and Training Specialist
> W3C/WAI
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carlos Duarte via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
> > Sent: miércoles, 1 de septiembre de 2021 11:42
> > To: caduarte@campus.ul.pt; dmontalvo@w3.org; shadi+EOsurvey@w3.org
> > Subject: [wbs] response to 'Curricula -- Checking overall structure for
> Designer Modules'
> >
> > The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Curricula --
> Checking overall structure for Designer Modules' (Accessibility
> > Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG)) for Carlos Duarte.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Introduction
> > >
> > > ----
> > > This survey is to check in with EOWG on the proposed changes in
> > > structure and language for the curricula Designer Modules.
> > > It is important to catch all EOWG's input on overall structure at this
> > > stage, especially if you do not feel comfortable with the changes
> > > proposed or you think further changes are needed.
> > > Once agreed on structure, next steps are to polish the resource and
> > > bring it back for thorough review.
> > >
> > > Please see the following background links:
> > >  * EOWG 30 July Call
> > >    * Designer Modules Starfish Review Survey Results
> > >    * [Issue] Designer Modules not Speaking to Designers
> > >    * [Issue] Designer Modules Use of Language
> > >    * Designer Modules Editor's Draft
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Review level
> > >
> > > ----
> > > What level of review did you do?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >  * (x) I thoroughly reviewed the materials.
> >  * ( ) I skimmed them.
> >  * ( ) I need more time and will review by the date provided below.
> >  * ( ) I didn't get to it and will not in the near future. I abstain
> from providing comment.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Overall Structure
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Some major structural changes have been made to the designer modules.
> > > Main changes include
> > >  * Module 1: "Flexible Layout and Design" -> "Color and Layout". Topic
> > > order is now: "Color", "Styles", "Landmarks and Cues", "Adaptability"
> > >    * Module 2 "Information Design" was previously Module 3. Topic
> > > order is now: "Text", "Labels and Instructions", "Tables".
> > >    * Module 3 "Navigation" was previously module 2
> > >    * Module 4: Images and Graphics topic order is now: "Functional
> > > Images","Informative Images", "Complex Images","Decorative Images"
> > >    * Module 5: Multimedia and Animation -- Use terminology from Making
> > > Audio and Video Media Accessible Clarifying carousel coverage. Topic
> > > order is now: "Alternatives to Multimedia Content", "Carousels and
> > > Movement"
> > >    * Module 6 "Interactions and Feedback" -> "Forms, Interactions, and
> > > Feedback". Topic order is now: "Forms Design", "Keyboard
> > > Interactions", "Gestures and Motion".
> > > For a detailed review of the changes, please take a look at:
> > >  * Designer Modules Overall Structure Diff
> > >    * Discussions on overall structure
> > >  * Would you be comfortable with this new structure?
> > >    * What further changes would you make to this structure before
> > > getting to polish the module contents?
> > >
> > >
> > Comments:
> > I agree with the overall direction of the changes and I find this
> version to be an improvement over the previous version. That being said, I
> > believe there is still room for improving the overall structure. The
> following are my suggestions:
> >
> > - Module 1: Topic Adaptability. Adaptability has too large a scope, and
> the meaning we want to convey might not be easily grasped by
> > designers. Given that we use Layout in the name of the module, I suggest
> replacing "Adaptability" with "Flexible Layout" or "Responsive
> > Layout" which, I believe, should resonate better with designers.
> >
> > - Module 6. I understand the reasons to highlight forms, but I don't
> think the proposed solution is the most appropriate. Module 6 was
> > previously about interaction design. Now it seems to be a mix of Forms
> design and Interaction design. And, I guess, forms design will cover
> > topics unrelated to interaction design. There has been a proposal to
> move forms to a different module, which I would support. In this way,
> > module 6 could be focused on Interaction design. I would recover a topic
> about notifications for this module, which, I assume, was being
> > moved into the Forms design topic. The new module on "Forms Design",
> could then cover form specific aspects of topics already introduced
> > in other modules (cues, labels, instructions, notifications) and
> introduce any new topics not covered yet.
> > If we find that the topics covered in forms end up being applicable to
> other components we may want to rename the module to "Forms and
> > Widgets Design".
> >
> > - Overall structure. I've often found UX design being organized around a
> set of design topics that include: visual design, information design
> > and interaction design. We may want to consider renaming some of our
> modules to align with this. My proposal would be: Module 1 -
> > Visual Design; Module 2 - Information Design (that is already its
> current name); Module 3 - Navigation Design; Module 4 - Interaction Design
> > (this is the current module 6); Module 5 - Images and Graphical Design
> (this is the current module 4); Module 6 - Multimedia and Animations
> > Design (this is the current module 5); Module 7 - Forms Design (this is
> the new module mentioned in the previous point).
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Language and Tone
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Work is being carried out to simplify the resource language and to
> > > make the resource tone closer to designers.
> > > Main changes include:
> > >  * Change learning outcomes starting phrase "design user interfaces"
> > > to "design layouts", "use", and "design user experiences" to make
> > > learning outcomes more concise and less jargony
> > >    * Overall pass to replace  specific terms used in WCAG with simpler
> > > and easier to process terms. For example:
> > >    * "contrast ratios" -> "color contrast"
> > >      * "sets of web pages" -> "websites"
> > >      * "general flash and red flash thresholds" -> "acceptable
> > > thresholds"
> > >      * remove "motion animation triggered by interaction" and spread
> > > through  the remaining learning outcomes for topic
> > >    * move away from WCAG definitions from multimedia content and use
> > > terminology from Making Audio and Video Media Accessible For a
> > > detailed view of the changes, please take a look at
> > >  * Overall Diff with Changes [WIP]
> > >    * Designer Modules Use of Language
> > >  * Do you think these changes solve the issue?
> > >    * What other suggestions do you think we should implement at this
> > > stage  that would make the language closer to designers?
> > >
> > >
> > Comments:
> > I agree with the proposed changes and support the motivation behind them.
> >
> > In what concerns additional suggestions, I found we use "mechanism" with
> some regularity. I was wondering if this term is common in
> > designers contents. I searched for it in "The UX Book 2nd edition" (by
> Hartson and Pyla, 2019), which I use in the UX course I teach. I found
> > only 21 instances of mechanism in the whole book (the print version has
> near 900 pages). And at least half of the instances are related to
> > physical mechanisms. So, perhaps "mechanism" is another term we may want
> to replace at least some of its instances. Some of the
> > instances could be replaced by "solution" or "design" (the noun, not the
> verb).
> >
> > >
> > > These answers were last modified on 1 September 2021 at 09:41:20 U.T.C.
> > > by Carlos Duarte
> > >
> > Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/curricula-overall-designer-structure/
> > until 2021-09-05.
> >
> >  Regards,
> >
> >  The Automatic WBS Mailer
>
>
>

-- 
*Carlos Duarte*
LASIGE, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa
Web: https://www.di.fc.ul.pt/~cad/
Twitter: @carlosapaduarte