RE: [wbs] response to 'Content Authors Curricula Starfish Review'

Thanks Daniel - everything looks great.

Sorry I wasn't able to finish filling out the survey - My whole family was dealing with Covid that week and there was some craziness at work.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org> 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 9:24 AM
To: Brian Elton <belton@tpgi.com>
Cc: wai-eo-editors@w3.org
Subject: RE: [wbs] response to 'Content Authors Curricula Starfish Review'

CAUTION: This email originated outside Vispero. Do not click links, open attachments or forward unless you recognize the sender.


Hey Brian.

Many thanks for filling in the survey, and sorry for my late response.

Please see below for my comments.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Elton via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 4:18 PM
> To: 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:
> Have added an issue via Github.

I have now addressed and closed the issue. Feel free to reopen if needed.
https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/531#issuecomment-1125977109


> > ---------------------------------
> > Module 2: Structure
> >
> > ----
> > Please review Module 2: Structure
> >  * Are all points covered - is anything missing?
> >    * Is there anything in there that should not be in there?
> > Please provide your comments in the below box or via:
> >  * GitHub Issue for Author Module 2: Structure
> >    * GitHub Pull Request for Author Module 2: Structure
> >
> >
> Comments:
> When describing heading levels, I think "hierarchy" is more accurate than "rank" and using proper hierarchy should be a learning outcome.

That is good point. I don't think we should get rid of "rank levels., though" I am not sure that hierarchy in itself communicates the appropriate use of heading rank levels. That is, how to achieve that hierarchy.
I took a pass at this in
https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/structure/#topic-headings


Are you comfortable with this new approach?

> In Orientation and Navigation Learning Outcomes, this line seems 
> backwards to me - "methods to move from a footnote to its content and 
> from its content back to the footnote." For me a "footnote" is the content, where the superscripted number or symbol could be called a footnote marker.
> Therefore I think this line should be "methods to move from a footnote 
> marker to the related footnote content and from the footnote content back to the footnote marker."
> A similar update would be needed in the Teaching Ideas for Topic and Ideas to Assess Knowledge for Topic.

Thanks for raising this. I will amend throughout.

>  Regards,
>
>  The Automatic WBS Mailer

--

Daniel Montalvo

Accessibility Education and Training Specialist W3C/WAI

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2022 12:22:07 UTC