- From: Daniel Montalvo <dmontalvo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 14:18:51 +0200
- To: <s.e.lewthwaite@soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hey Sarah, Thanks for your feedback. Sorry for the late response. Please see my answers below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah Lewthwaite via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 10:51 PM > To: s.e.lewthwaite@soton.ac.uk; dmontalvo@w3.org > Subject: [wbs] response to 'Content Authors Curricula Starfish Review' > > > --------------------------------- > > Content Authors Overview Page > > > > ---- > > Please review Content Author Modules Overview Page > > * 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 Content Author Modules Overview Page > > * GitHub Pull Request for Content Authors Overview Page > > > > > Comments: > Are there students who could complete the content authoring modules separately from our Foundation prerequisites? Should we consider > whether this module will have appeal to non-technical learners, studying content authoring as a standalone? The answer may be 'no', but I > wanted to raise this earlier rather than later. The approach we took at the beginning for each of the three parts (developers, designers, and content authors) is to recommend that these go after the foundation modules. I think we should envision these content author modules with that approach in mind. > > --------------------------------- > > 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: > For Clear Content, we require teachers to have in-depth knowledge of "accessible content creation" - is this term used elsewhere? For clarity, we have changed that now to: [[ * Writing * Copy-editing * Proofreading ]] > TOPIC: Easy to Understand Language. > Teaching topic, bullet 1 suggests '..clear and easy to understand passages are essential for people with disabilities and benefit all' in bullet 2 > the final sentence reads "Emphasise how this improves the ability of several groups of people with disabilities to understand the text". > These two bullets imply different impact - one for all disabilities, implying all disabled people need easy-read resources, the second stating > that it helps some groups. My preference is for this second option. additionally, the phrase 'improves the ability' is slightly medical - and > could benefit from a slight rephrase (e.g. to 'improves accessibility'?). These teaching ideas read now: [[ * Provide text passages with clear language that is easy to read and understand. Compare those with passages that are overly complex and harder to understand. Emphasize that clear writing is essential for some groups of people with disabilities to effectively use content, and also benefits all users. * Compare active versus passive voice in sentence structures. Explain how understanding is improved by using direct language and clear identification of the source of the action. Explain how active voice improves overall accessibility and readability of the content. ]] > In teaching ideas bullet 3, line length is not mentioned - but has a big impact on accessibility. Should we add this, if font and font size are to > be mentioned? This is now under a new topic in module 1 Clear Content, called "Visual Appearance". I have changed it to: [[ * Demonstrate how different visual aspects impact readability of the content. These include font types and sizes, spacing, and line height. Demonstrate use of font types, such as Sans Serif, that provide a good reading experience. Providing the text is a content author's responsibility. Defining the visual appearance is a designer's responsibility. ]] Would this address your concern? > TOPIC: Terminology. > All teaching topics are so far about fixing bad text. Could a research task > - for example, asking students to research best practice and evaluate their findings - be included. Additional reflective tasks may help > students develop stronger competencies and engage with difficult practice/sticky issues more robustly. A research task may also be > appropriate for Ideas to Assess Knowledge. That is now in learning outcomes, teaching ideas , and ideas to assess knowledge of topic complex terms https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/clear-content/#topic-complex-terms > > --------------------------------- > > 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: > HEADINGS: Teaching Ideas for Topic, bullet 4, change '...how heading can look like' to '...what headings can look like'. Done. > possible additional> teaching ideas for bullet 4 include (at end) "Ask students to consider the cases where an author changing a style might be acceptable" - a > better sub task may be available, but I'd be keen that student reflect on whether it is appropriate for an author to change styles, and the > implications. I tried to be careful not to imply heading styles should not be changed. This could end up being perceived as a very restrictive interpretation of accessibility. Based on these comments and on our discussion yesterday, I have included Learning outcomes [[ * describe the accessibility considerations when changing the default visual appearance of headings, including: * potential inaccessibility of the selected custom visual appearance * mismatch between the visual appearance of the heading and the generated markup ]] Teaching "Ideas [[ * Show examples of what headings can look like visually. Explain that predefining the styles is a designer's and authoring tool vendor's responsibility. When content authors change these styles, they must ensure visual and non-visual accessibility of headings themselves. ]] Ideas to Assess Knowledge for Topic [[ * Practical — Ask students to change the visual appearance of the headings on a given website ensuring that they remain accessible visually and non-visually. Assess how students ensure visual and non-visual accessibility of headings when changing the headings style. ]] Do you have further suggestions around these additions? > TOPIC: Paragraphs and Lists. > In the learning outcomes, again, do we want to consider framing this as being for some groups with disabilities, and beneficial for all? This > issue comes up repeatedly - again in Orientation and Navigation, in that everyone relies on meaningful content sequences etc. Based on our 24 May discussion, I have focused this on the impact for people with disabilities. I will take a pass throughout as well. > In Teaching Ideas for Topic (Orientation and Navigation, Or Ideas to Assess Knowledge for Modules) roles come up repeatedly. Could this in > itself be a reflexive activity. e.g. getting students to discuss division of roles, exceptions and the importance of cross-role communication to > accessibility. We have a topic in Foundation Modules called Roles and Responsibilities. https://www.w3.org/WAI/curricula/foundation-modules/getting-started-with-accessibility/#topic-roles-and-responsibilities I have a new teaching idea that refers back to that topic. It also tells instructors to mention that, when authoring tools do not support accessible orientation and navigation methods, collaboration between different roles is required. [[ * Refer back to Foundation Module 5: Getting Started with Accessibility, [Topic Roles and Responsibilities](/foundation-modules/getting-started-with-accessibility/#topic-roles-and-responsibilities). Explain that, when authoring tools do not support accessible orientation and navigation methods, content authors need to collaborate with other team members, including designers and developers, to include them. Designers specify the appearance and interaction of the methods. Developers implement these methods. ]] Do you have further suggestions to this addition? > Highlighting this as a competency to teachers, and the practical understanding it conveys could be valuable. Do you mean adding something like "Accessibility roles and responsibilities breakdown" to the instructor competencies? If so, I would say that is already in "In-depth knowledge of Foundation prerequisites". That takes to the content author modules overview page, where we list the foundation modules that we think are a prerequisite for instructor competencies. https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/#foundation-prerequisites It is convoluted as it takes two or three clicks to see the specific pieces that we are mentioning, but I would leave this redesign questions for future iterations. > > --------------------------------- > > 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: > Topic: Labels. Ideas to assess knowledge, practical: would there be value in students have to label in small-group work, to justify and > negotiate with peers how they have labeled content to make it accessible. This may work better as a teaching ideal. That is good point. I am not sure about requiring that they work in groups. For some scenarios that may not be possible. I have added bits on self-assessment and provision of text for labels in existing teaching idea. It now reads: [[ * Reflect with students about commonly used labels for form fields and controls. Examples include “name”, “surname”, “address”, “phone”, “email”, and others. Help students brainstorm which text they would use for each label. Explain that the label should be a unique, clear, and descriptive text that communicates the meaning, purpose, and intent of the form field or control. ]] > Error messages - Ideas to Assess Knowledge/Teaching Ideas - would it be possible/useful to include examples that a task for students that > includes subsequent feedback, revision and reworking of student work (error > messages) under teacher guidance? Current demo and fix models of teaching/assessment could be a bit limited. I Agree that current approach seems to be a bit narrow. Again, it may not be possible for students to work in groups. I have split current teaching ideas and added teaching idea about brainstorming accessible ways to communicate errors based on an existing form with errors. [[ * Demonstrate approaches to communicating error messages. For example, identifying the fields that caused the error and providing suggestions to correct the problem when these do not compromise the security of the form. * Give students examples of forms that contain errors. Help students brainstorm accessible ways to communicate these errors. ]] Do these address the point you raised? > > --------------------------------- > > Module 4: Images > > > > ---- > > Please review Module 4: Images > > * 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 module 4: > > Images > > Please provide your comments in the below box or via: > > * GitHub Issue for Author Module 4: Images > > * GitHub Pull Request for Author Module 4: Images > > > > > Comments: > Informative Images: Teaching ideas for topic - I think a task that includes the practice of generating meaningful text alternatives would be > very helpful here, to highlight ambiguity and help scaffold students through challenges. Teaching ideas appear to be generally 'tell' - with > the exception of 'reflect with' on bullet 3. More active pedagogy/learning design, particularly learning by doing, could be helpful here, > ahead of any assessment. This point holds for subsequent topics in this module also. The Ideas to Assess Knowledge for Module do > recognise this issue - and look strong. I have now reworded some of the teaching ideas throughout to align them with your comments. > > --------------------------------- > > Module 5: Data Tables > > > > ---- > > Please review Module 5: Data Tables > > * 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 > > 5: Data Tables > > Please provide your comment in the below box or via: > > * GitHub Issue for Author Module 5: Data Tables > > * GitHub Pull Request for Author Module 5: Data Tables > > > > > Comments: > At present 'Teaching Ideas for Topic' appear to be very clear but didactic: > show, introduce, explain, demo. More active learning ideas ahead of the assessment ideas would be useful in this topic (discuss, evaluate, > practice, etc). Assessment can be formative, but practice ahead of assessment is also important to develop knowledge and competence in > the first instance. I have taken a pass on teaching ideas to reflect your comments, similarly to what I have described in previous modules. > > --------------------------------- > > Module 6: Multimedia > > > > ---- > > Please review Module 6: Multimedia Note that ideas for teaching and > > assessment will be developed later. > > * Are all points covered - is anything missing? > > * Is there anything in there that should not be in there? > > * Do you think we adequately addressed current Open issues for > > Author Module 6: Multimedia Please provide your comments in the below > > box or via: > > * GitHub Issue for Author Module 6: Multimedia > > * GitHub Pull Request for Author Module 6: Multimedia > > > > > Comments: > Do we want to highlight at the outset that multimedia can be more accessible than text for some disabled people? This appears relevant to > early learning outcomes about best practice for audio and video (and the importance of recognising accessibility in production). The > subsequent sections are sketched, so I do not have much to add here. However, one teaching idea for Topic Planning Audio and Video, > could be for the group to crit a range of video/sound content, identifying accessibility challenges and successes/best practices and to > consider strategies for managing these issues in a mulitimedia development scenario/project. Added [[ * Give students an existing audio and video project. Ask them to identify potential accessibility barriers to address. Help them brainstorm which accessibility best practices they could include in the planning phase to minimize such barriers. ]] > Regards, > > The Automatic WBS Mailer -- Daniel Montalvo Accessibility Education and Training Specialist W3C/WAI
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2022 12:19:01 UTC