W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > October 2011

Regrets

From: Votis Konstantinos <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:46:02 +0300
Message-Id: <65F70008-EA96-4BB4-962C-02360DAED51E@iti.gr>
Cc: Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
I am sorry but I have to sent regrets for today



On 13 Oct 2011, at 00:11, "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl> wrote:

> Hi Leonie,
> 
> Going through your questions and remarks:
> - Think we could include the word accessibility but it is not necessary because it is already in WCAG. We are making a methodology to evaluate for WCAG 2.0. Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0 would then fully cover what we do.
> 
> - Our current focus is on WCAG 2.0. This is now reflected in the title. For a next versions we should review the methodology and we may have to update or make minor changes. We should describe that dynamic relation in the Methodology itself.
> 
> - The term evaluation is in the title of the Eval Task Force. Would like to hold on to that.
> 
> - In my opinion, the term conformance or conformity or compliance is not necessary in the name of the Methodology. Some people find the words disturbing and feel pressured when they are used. It is however a key section in the Methodology itself!
> 
> - Agree about the acronym. We should focus on a name covering what it is. But on the other hand, so many beautiful proposals for acronyms that I could not stop myself from putting an overview in the agenda. Please excuse me for that :-)
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Eric 
> ________________________________________
> Van: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] namens Léonie Watson [lwatson@nomensa.com]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 15:29
> Aan: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
> Onderwerp: RE: [more] naming for "Methodology"
> 
> "- it does not include the word "accessibility" (though it is part of the acronym WCAG, which we would likely expand in the title anyway);"
> 
>        I don't think we need to mention "accessibility" elsewhere in the t
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 03:46:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT