<scribe> scribe: CarlosD
dmontalvo: thanks everyone for
the reviews, which I'm addressing
... there is phrase that is used often distinguishing
multimedia contents and types
... s/contents/formats
... formats reference audio or video, while types refer to live
and prerecorded
... do you think this is clear? Or should we use other
terms?
BrianE: These are good for me
<dmontalvo> Carlos: I am good with this
estella: It's okay for me
also.
... one issue that we might have is the use of "description"
that might be too broad
dmontalvo: We define
"description" in the introduction to the module
... and then throughout the module we use "description" as a
shorthand
... in these last two teaching ideas I was trying to use a more
didactic approach
... as suggested by Sarah
... but it was raised that these last two teaching ideas were
similar to ideas to assess knowledge
... How can we make these more distinguishable while keeping
teaching ideas more didactic?
BrianE: We might rephrase to make
it more instructor centered and leave the assessment to ask for
students work
... this would also follow along the structure of the prior
teaching ideas
Brent: We might add some teaching
strategies, like "through guided discussion..."
... making sure that there is a difference between teaching
ideas and the assessments
dmontalvo: I will research how to rephrase this, and work through all the modules
Howard: The WAI videos on "how people with disabilities use the web" could be useful here
dmontalvo: That is a good idea that ties with approaches we have in another modules
estella: In our courses we ask
the students to select contents and watch them with audio but
no video, and then with the description, to make them reflect
on the usefulness of the descriptions
... we apply the same strategies for captions
dmontalvo: There was a EO
discussion about not showing inaccessible examples before the
accessible ones
... I will confirm if this approach is acceptable
Brent: I don't recall that discussion. Keep in mind that it will be up to the instructor to decide the way it will be shown.
dmontalvo: I will work on these and try to bring it to the EO meeting this week
dmontalvo: I've made changes to
the topic structure of the Clear Content module
... there were no changes to the content, just the topic
structure
... the second topic was "Terminology" which was very close to
the first topic, so these have been merged
... and I've added a topic on "Visual Appearance" addressing
content authors that also need to work on the visual appearance
of the content
<dmontalvo> Previous iteration
<estella> done
<BrianE> done
<scribe> done
<Howard> done
<Brent> done
dmontalvo: The Visual Appearance
topic discusses about visual presentation and links back to the
designed module on visual design
... Do you agree with the proposed changes?
BrianE: I think it works good, with the changes targeting the visual aspects on how to make it easy to read, not really focusing on other visual aspects
estella: Why do you refer to "easy to read" and not "plain language"? Also, one of the aspects of easy to read is providing lists for contents, but it is not mentioned here.
dmontalvo: I addressed lists in
another module, but I should cross-reference from it. Good
point.
... I had "plain language" initially, but we received comments
that it might not well be understood outside the English
context
... I think most of what is discussed under plain language is
addressed here, and we try to avoid confusing
estella: This is similar to the
issue of "captions" versus "subtitles".
... we need to be aware to the terminology issue
... to be certified as "easy to read" a validation with
end-users is required... that is not required for "plain
language"
Brent: So, EU readers could misunderstand this as requiring a validation
estella: The umbrella term is "easy to understand"
Brent: To me "easy to read" and
"easy to understand" are different things
... but there is that additional layer related to the
validation and we don't want to cause confusion
estella: I would avoid using "easy to read" without a reference to "plain language"
dmontalvo: I was not aware that
in Europe "easy to read" would lead to an assumption that is
certified content
... if that is the case we should avoid causing confusion
Howard: there is not similar
assumption in the US
... perhaps we need to bring that to the EO group
estella: I agree with Howard's suggestion
<estella> https://european-union.europa.eu/easy-read_en
dmontalvo: I will open an issue for this and bring this the others attention for review
Brent: In the "Titles and Link
Text" topic we should mention that people that use screen
readers can pull a link list and would have to interpret link
text without link context
... For the "Visual Appearance" topic... people always ask what
is the best font? There is no correct answer to that. But we
might want to have a teaching idea to make students look for
those discussions
Howard: I also have a couple of
suggestions. In the "Titles and Link Text" I give my students a
selection of web pages and ask them to discuss whether the
texts are appropriate or not.
... There are some good resources on this from Easy Checks
dmontalvo: Easy Checks is under updating, but I will keep that in mind
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Present: CarlosD, Howard, Daniel, estella, BrianE, Brent Regrets: Sarah, Gerhard Found Scribe: CarlosD Inferring ScribeNick: CarlosD WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]