- From: Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 11:19:26 +0200
- To: <kakinney@ets.org>
- Cc: <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hey Kris Anne, Thanks for your comments. Please see my answers below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kris Anne Kinney via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org> > Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 11:06 PM > To: kakinney@ets.org; dmontalvo@w3.org > Subject: [wbs] response to 'Content Authors Curricula Starfish Review' > > --------------------------------- > > Module 1: Clear Content > > > > ---- > > Please review Module 1: Clear Content > > * Are all points covered - is anything missing? > > * Is there anything in there that should not be in there? > > * Do you think we adequately addressed Open issues for Author > > Module > > 1: Clear Content > > Please provide your comments in the below box or via: > > * GitHub Issue for Module 1: Clear Content > > * GitHub Pull Request for Author Module 1: Clear Content > > > > > Comments: > Yes, prefer clear content as the title. Had a similar question about the same learning outcome Carlos opened an issue on in GitHub, so > added my support there. That's now addressed. https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/519 > I am struggling with the font choices in here, since the choice of font is up to the designers - not the editors. I know its important to know > about font - but I am struggling with it for some reason, so I wanted to note my mental struggle with it in case anyone else did as well. > Can't fully form why I don't feel like it fits here, so I won't open a Github issue for it. The TF concluded that fonts fall under the designer responsibilities, so we would like to cross reference the designer part. We plan to refer to fonts as "related requirements for designers". Would that address your concerns, or you still think this wording could potentially create issues? > > --------------------------------- > > Module 3: Forms > > > > ---- > > Please review Module 3: Forms > > * Are all points covered - is anything missing? > > * Is there anything in there that should not be in there? > > * Do you think we adequately addressed Open issues for Author > > Module > > 3: Forms > > Please provide your comments in the below box or via: > > * GitHub Issue for Author Module 3: Forms > > * GitHub Pull Request for Author Module 3: Forms > > > > > Comments: > Do we get into forms in any other modules, in any of the other curricula? We have Developer Modules: Forms https://www.w3.org/WAI/curricula/developer-modules/forms/ Designer Modules: Forms Design https://www.w3.org/WAI/curricula/designer-modules/forms-design/ > Wondering if the idea of fieldsets to group common topics in forms is something we could discuss here? Is that too much for this type of > module? > I think its something that is overlooked often - I know I forget it too. > Just a thought, not a strong preference either way. Task Force seems to see this more as a developer's responsibility. We cover fieldsets in Developer Module: Forms. https://www.w3.org/WAI/curricula/developer-modules/forms/#topic-controls-and-labels I don't think we should get into the detail of explaining the fieldset element here. But we will add the following to the learning outcomes in Content Author Modules: Forms, Topic Labels https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/forms/#topic-labels [[ * provide unique and descriptive labels for: * form fields * form controls * groups of related form fields and controls ]] Would that address your concern? > Regards, > > The Automatic WBS Mailer -- Daniel Montalvo Accessibility Education and Training Specialist W3C/WAI
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2022 09:19:31 UTC