Inclusive Learning Design Handbook (ILDH) visual design feedback

Moss, Gregor gmoss at ocadu.ca
Fri Sep 13 17:05:31 UTC 2019


We aren’t implementing the design at this point, so we won’t be able to test anything with screen readers yet, however there are steps we can take at this point to make that go more smoothly. I’m reminded of a Community Meeting talk<https://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Community+Meeting+%28September+26%2C+2018%29%3A+Documenting+Accessibility+in+Wireframes> about a year ago hosted by Rob Carr who spoke about indicating accessibility features on wireframes, e.g. listing tab order, labels, skip links, etc. It would be great to include similar markup in the design and to consider interactions with the design with various AT’s.

Cheers,
Gregor

From: everyone <everyone-bounces at lists.inclusivedesign.ca> On Behalf Of pina.dintino at gmail.com
Sent: September 12, 2019 21:03
To: Liskovoi, Lisa <lliskovoi at ocadu.ca>; Watkins, Caren <cwatkins at ocadu.ca>
Cc: fluid-work at lists.idrc.ocad.ca; 'everyone at the IDRC' <everyone at lists.idrc.ocad.ca>
Subject: RE: Inclusive Learning Design Handbook (ILDH) visual design feedback

Are we making sure we are including accessibility requirements and testing at this phase of the design? Test with a screen reader to see how the flow actually works, use the shortcut keys to navigate through links and buttons, etc.



From: everyone <everyone-bounces at lists.inclusivedesign.ca<mailto:everyone-bounces at lists.inclusivedesign.ca>> On Behalf Of Liskovoi, Lisa
Sent: September 12, 2019 11:18 AM
To: Watkins, Caren <cwatkins at ocadu.ca<mailto:cwatkins at ocadu.ca>>
Cc: fluid-work at lists.idrc.ocad.ca<mailto:fluid-work at lists.idrc.ocad.ca>; everyone at the IDRC <everyone at lists.idrc.ocad.ca<mailto:everyone at lists.idrc.ocad.ca>>
Subject: Re: Inclusive Learning Design Handbook (ILDH) visual design feedback

Hi Caren,

The designs look great! I also prefer the header/main content in the 2nd design, I think the Explore section is more engaging/inviting, although some of that is because of the colour so I’m wondering if it would have the same effect if colour was added to the first version. I also really like the half circle Explore heading, and it ties nicely with the Download icon on the content page.

I think the three tier footer a lot of content to repeat on every single page. Personally I prefer the footer of the first design. I would also consider making Accessibility and Get Involved their own content pages, include the two links in the footer and leave all the content to those pages to make the footer less crowded. I think we might also want to consider having a more detailed Accessibility statement that includes more details on process, feedback, areas where we might be aware of shortcomings, etc. I usually point people to https://zoom.us/accessibility as a good example. They’ve changed the page quite a bit, but I still like the general structure and content.

I think we should avoid having “Learn More” links if possible, especially because we usually advise others not to do that. Can we make some part of the content itself more actionable? Or have the wording within those buttons be more descriptive and unique?

Looking forward to seeing the site come together :)

Best,
Lisa
________________________________

LISA LISKOVOI
INCLUSIVE DESIGNER AND ACCESSIBILITY SPECIALIST
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE

T 416 977 6000 x3961
E lliskovoi at ocadu.ca<mailto:lliskovoi at ocadu.ca>

OCAD UNIVERSITY
100 McCaul Street, Toronto, Canada M5T 1W1
www.ocadu.ca<http://www.ocadu.ca>

On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Justin Obara <obara.justin at gmail.com<mailto:obara.justin at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Caren,

The designs are looking really good.

Which home page do you prefer and why?


  *   My opinion might change when there is a real image on Version 1, but at first glance Version 2 just looks cleaner and doesn’t feel like it cuts off at the fold the way Version 1 does.
  *   Comments on footer of Version 2

     *   Pros:

        *   I like the general look
        *   Feels less cramped
        *   Easier to read

     *   Cons:

        *   It looks more like content, especially on the first page (maybe that’s a good thing?)
        *   I don’t know if I’d realized there was more below the first tier
        *   It takes up a lot of space.
        *   Not sure about the ordering

Is there anything you feel is missing from either design?

AND Please feel free to share comments beyond these guiding questions!


  *   I wonder about the accessibility (keyboard, screen reader, etc.) of having the navigation on the right hand side of the secondary pages. For example a user would have to tab through all of the content before reaching the navigation.
  *   I don’t understand the circle icon above “Related Resources” and “Further Readings” on the secondary page. It looks like a radio button.

Thanks
Justin

On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Watkins, Caren <cwatkins at ocadu.ca<mailto:cwatkins at ocadu.ca>> wrote:

Hi folks,
The IDRC has been updating the design of the Inclusive Learning and Design Handbook (ILDH) website (https://handbook.floeproject.org/index.html) and your input would be valuable.

The ILDH is created with and for teachers, content creators, web developers and learners.

There are two possible visual designs for you to look at of a home page along with a secondary page design—Version 1 and Version 2.

You can view the two versions through the following web links. You can leave comments directly on the files, send comments in an email or call the cell number in the signature below if you prefer voice to voice:
https://xd.adobe.com/view/5dd89e40-f0a7-478f-4877-e677f3f7ebd3-2be9/
https://xd.adobe.com/view/e2d8f1cd-4df0-4690-6e80-39474ac7760d-94e9/

PDFs of the full pages are attached to this email as an alternative (please note that the dashed horizontal rule indicates where the screen crops the page before scrolling occurs).

The following questions may help guide your feedback if you choose to participate:
Which home page do you prefer and why?
Are there changes you think could improve either design?
Is there anything you feel is missing from either design?

AND Please feel free to share comments beyond these guiding questions!

Thanks so much.

Sincerely,
Caren



________________________________

CAREN WATKINS

Inclusive Design Research Centre
OCAD University
205 Richmond Street West, 2nd Floor
Toronto, ON   M5V 1V3
idrc.ocadu.ca<http://idrc.ocadu.ca/>

SNOW: Inclusive Education and Learning
Learning with Technology since 1998
snow.idrc.ocadu.ca/<https://snow.idrc.ocadu.ca/>

FLOE: Flexible Learning for Open Education
https://floeproject.org/

cwatkins at ocadu.ca<mailto:cwatkins at ocadu.ca>

T 416-520-1275
________________________________
<ILDH visual design VERSION 1.pdf><ILDH visual design VERSION 2.pdf>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20190913/55a329f6/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list