Meeting minutes
scribe CarlosD
Setting up meeting, choosing scribe https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WAI_Curricula/WAI_Curricula_Task_Force_Meetings#Scribe_Rotation_List
FYIs on on-going changes
Daniel: I've revisited some of the module titles
… and updated several
… added references in module 1 to the scope of accessibility
… the work on the topics is not ready yet, but I've been updating it
Daniel: this topic is related to the different responsibilities of the different roles within the team
… I've updated the learning outcomes to include two items that signpost to other roles
sloandr: in the fifth bullet I would replace "including" with "such as", or preferably remove the following list to make it more succint
… for the last bullet point, I would suggest rephrasing it as describe related requirements to other project team members, instead of naming project owners only
Daniel: in summary, it is good to split this into further roles
donal: is there a hierarchy for involvement of persons with disabilities implied here?
… the fifth bullet point mentions several techniques that rely on people while other don't
… so is there an implied hierarchy of getting users' perspectives?
Daniel: these have been provided to illustrate that people with disabilities can be involved in every activities
donal: The EN17161 standard envisions different scenarios for involvement of user needs, either directly or indirectly
… I can provide you with such information from the standard's annex
sloandr: donal raised an important point, that is should this be in the scope of the curricula?
… some organisations might not have the resources to apply all of these techniques
Daniel: let's advocate for these to happen...
… but we need to acknowledge that some might not have the resources to do all of this
… we need to find a balance
slewth: any way that we can raise awareness to the importance of this we should do it
Howard: in the sixth bullet item, we should replace "means" with "needs"
… and we could remove the seventh bullet item
… it does not add anything that has not been already stated
… the list is rather long
… it can overwhelm people
Daniel: I acknowledge that all learning outcomes lists are rather long at the moment
… but I hope that as we work on them we can remove some of the points
… re: the seventh people, it was trying to communicate that by involving one person with disabilities you're not covering the entire spectrum
Howard: I did not derive that meaning
… also, universal design applies to a full spectrum of abilities and I found it strange that a module on inclusive design does not mention that
… also that abilities change over time
Daniel: the third bullet does touch on inclusive design being more than accessibility but it needs rewording
Roberto: are situational disabilities in the scope?
Daniel: I don't think it needs to be explicit, given that what we are addressing here will also benefit people hampered by a situational disablity
<shadi> https://
sloandr: also that is covered in the foundational modules
Daniel: we could focus this module on the user research instead of what we have on other modules
Daniel: there was feedback that the distinction between modules 2 and 3 was not clear
… there are many concepts that are subject to both modules, which makes it difficult to make these distinctions clear
… have the changes improved the distinction and what do we need to make it even clearer?
Howard: seems distinct and clear to me
Daniel: visual design was previously page layout
… and navigation was previously navigation and orientation
Howard: agree that this terminology is better
… but where is layout presented now?
Daniel: we mention layout in the first bullet of the visual design module
CarlosD: we have one bullet item about placement in the navigation module that should be moved to the visual design module
sloandr: the fourth and fifth bullets in the visual design belong in the "flexible and responsive design" module
… which kind of already covers it
Daniel: initially we had "appropriate font sizes" so that we convey that at the beginning of the design process it should be considered
… but know we're using "adjustable" and that might be more confusing
sloandr: i agree that something needs to be covered in module 2 for the initial design and in module 8 so that designers also consider the flexibility required by interfaces that can be adjusted by users
Daniel: in the navigation module, the last bullet has a sublist
… do you think the items in this list cover the distinction between semantic and visual aspects?
Roberto: to me it does distinguish
sloandr: the language implies that it is up to developers to provide the clear and description names
… while they are responsible for providing the appropriate markup
… we should replace "provide" with "implement"
Daniel: we need to strike a balance between the roles of developers, designers and content authors
Daniel: I had a closer look at the roles described in the work of the ARRM group
… and tried to group some of the roles
… do we agree with this sub-role categorisation?
sloandr: I think the list is good
wrap-up and next steps
Daniel: there is a lot to be done
… especially in module 1 on how to cover organisations that do not have resources to do user research with people with disabilities
… so that we need the curriculum to reinforce the importance of teach the student the importance of this subject
Daniel: still need to flesh out the modules and complete the teaching ideas and assessments
… expect a survey when there is a complete draft
… perhaps late May