<scribe> scribe: CarlosD
dmontalvo: this item points to an
issue raised by Kevin about the coverage we give to authoring
tools
... we seem to put more emphasis in this curricula than in the
previous ones
... currently we have learning outcomes throughout the modules
that start with "employ authoring tools that..."
... do you agree with the approach to include these learning
outcomes and do you agree that we should require instructors to
know about accessible authoring tools?
<dmontalvo> https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/
BrianE: both instances make sense... students should learn about tools that support what they are learning about
<estella> +1 to Bryan
<Howard> +1 to Bryan
BrianE: it might be too much of a burden to expect instructors to know about all tools, but they should be critical about the tool's requirements
<GN> +1 to Brian
<estella> Carlos: +1 to Bryan also but also it is needed to make sure that this is clear in the learning outcome.
dmontalvo: we need to clarify
that we should include requirements for assessing the
accessibility of authoring tools
... I'll update the draft accordingly
<dmontalvo> https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/forms/
dmontalvo: Michelle opened this
item requesting we get into more detail on the differences of
accessible names and descriptions
... also requesting for more focus on ARIA
... we already have content related on module 3
... but she asked for more details
... I don't expect content authors to get into the details of
ARIA attributes and properties
... we can provide examples and their relation to some ARIA
attributes, but without requiring detailed knowledge about the
attributes
estella: I agree with Daniel...
content authors may not know what ARIA is or what to look
for
... this is required knowledge for developers, but not for
content authors
BrianE: I agree with Estella that it might be too much burden for content authors
<GN> +1 to Estella and Brian
<estella> Carlos: I agree with Estella and Brian
<dmontalvo> https://github.com/w3c/wai-curricula/issues/506#issuecomment-1089527347
Howard: I also agree
dmontalvo: there is agreement that we need to address the differences between names and descriptions, while ensuring that there is no scope creep in these modules
<dmontalvo> https://content-author-modules--wai-curricula.netlify.app/curricula/content-author-modules/multimedia/
dmontalvo: two weeks ago we
discussed the learning outcomes of the multimedia module
... the learning outcomes were going beyond the
responsibilities of content authors
... we moved from "create" to "ensure" to better represent the
responsibilities of content authors
... we still have an open question on the different types of
topics for this module
... we now have four topics: planning of content creation,
descriptions, captions and sign language
... is this content appropriate? Is it redundant?
Brent: we need a catch all topic to talk about things that don't easily fall inside a specific topic... I guess that the planning topic is that one?
dmontalvo: yes
Brent: does the title encompass all we need to discuss in that topic?
<dmontalvo> https://www.w3.org/WAI/media/av/
BrianE: I think it does.
... it breaks down the technical aspects from other
aspects
... about the sign language, I agree that it needs to be
planned for, but I'm not sure that there should be a topic for
it, because there are not many more responsibilities for
content authors
dmontalvo: I'm also not sure
about the need for the topic on sign language
... and I'm not happy with the planning topic title
estella: I like the breakdown.
However, I'm not sure I would use the word "Plan" for a
learning outcome
... I think sign language needs to be present. It's not just
about live interpretation. Some platforms do not even support
it. Therefore, I argue that it needs to be addressed.
dmontalvo: If we don't have a topic on sign language, it could be interpreted as us being dismissive on that
estella: sometimes people think that sign language needs not be provided because there are captions, but it needs to be addressed
dmontalvo: we will mention sign language interpretation, just need to decide on what is the best format
<estella> Carlos: Do we need a specific topic on sign language?
estella: We discussed this last week. We need to ensure that content authors take this into consideration. It's not about knowing how to create sign languages. And this also applies to captions, audio-description...
dmontalvo: This is more a
planning issues. Content authors need to be aware of this, to
make provisions for the sign language videos, for example
... I'll think about how to present this, if in the planning
topic or in a specific topic
Brent: The point about planning
is important, even if we have a topic on sign language.
... if someone is not responsible for captions or sign language
they might skip those topics, so they need to find something
about in the planning topic
dmontalvo: the planning topic should address what you need to know and do before an alternative is included... the specific topics will go into the details of what needs to be done from the perspective of content authors
estella: Are you planning on introducing "subtitles" also?
dmontalvo: I plan to follow the EO style agreement. Therefore, I'm using "captions" instead of "subtitles". But somewhere in the curricula I'll mention this.
estella: for me captions and
subtitles are different terms
... Captions is a term more used in anglophone countries, and subtitles, more specifically Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing (SDH) is a term more used in European countries.
dmontalvo: we can include these questions in the next EO survey
dmontalvo: we may have a
discussion on the EO meeting of 22nd of April
... we will have meeting on the 19th but not on the 26th
... in the coming weeks we should open the starfish review