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

Re: Eval Methodology - ideas for naming

From: Robert Yonaitis <ryonaitis@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:39:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD_6MyPQsOQfuTUTbDM_H_C3=MY3ggbd-ufUy0BqLo=CW0Tn7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>
Cc: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Denis,

I have posted thoughts earlier and I still believe picking a name
based on acronym to be the reverse of logical, a name should be
selected to unambiguously describe the end-product and brand ~ This is
why many times a software company will go with a code name and a
writer will rewrite the first chapter because in the end the work does
not match the start.

Now once you develop a product outline/concept, you Define, Build, and
Evaluate the end product, you then can develop a marketing program -
marketing is quite different from product design. The fact that you
are calling something WISE is no guarantee that it is Wise and
selling/promoting it will be made more difficult because names that
make claims, that are not proven, often produce the opposite reaction
- based on my experience.

Product naming is important if you are to have success in your
venture. I would suggest that the work product be developed and then a
name created and the same name be tested by people via a polling
system and most-likely people not in this group.

I think many people walk away from standards because of a lack of
understanding versus a lack of wanting. So my suggestion would be to
drop the name until the product is developed and when you name it have
the name be accurate and NEVER indicate the quality of the product -
allow the reader/user to do that.

Thanks for your time!
Rob Yonaitis


On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Denis Boudreau
<dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Sorry for cross-posting but as this discussion is happening in both groups
> at the same time, I thought I'd just send this mail to both groups.
> Based on our discussions from last friday's meeting in EO and yesterday's
> meeting at EvalTF, I feel I'm sold to the relevancy of a short catchy name.
> But finding one is a difficult task...
> I also think we need to evacuate "website" from the equation in favor of
> something else. Still not sure about "web information system" as it is a
> mouthful, but I do believe it is more accurate than website and covers more
> broadly.
> So, to follow up on the naming ideas that were brought up, I'd like to
> propose the following for brainstorm... Hack away!
> So,
> Using WISE:
>
> Web Information Systems Evaluation
> Web Inclusion Strategy for Evaluation
>
> Using AWARE:
>
> Accessible Web Applications Review Examination
> Applied Web Accessibility Review Examination
>
> Using EQUAL:
>
> Evaluation for QUalified Accessibility Level
> External Qualification for Universal Access Label
>
> I know most don't make a lot of sense. I'm hoping they could spark some
> ideas, so there just meant as a base for discussion. It seems to me that
> using one of those acronyms would allow us to call this the WISE-, AWARE- or
> EQUAL-methodology, which would bring a warm, fuzzy feeling to it and would
> sound kind of cool. Not to mention being much easier to remember and to
> pronounce than "WAEM" for example.
> Any thoughts?
> --
> Denis Boudreau, président
> Coopérative AccessibilitéWeb
> 1751 rue Richardson, bureau 6111
> Montréal (Qc), Canada H3K 1G6
> Téléphone : +1 877.315.5550
> Courriel : dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com
> Web : www.accessibiliteweb.com
>
>
>
> On 2011-10-21, at 7:35 AM, Victoria Menezes Miller wrote:
>
> Good Morning or good afternoon (as the case may be),
>
> I'm okay with WAEM.
>
> Brainstorming:
>
>
>
> WCAG 2 - AEM
>
> WCAG - Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
>
>
>
> Like:
>
> WCAG-Check
>
> Or
>
> Check WCAG
>
>
>
> Ok with:
>
> WAEM
>
> I think it’s important to have accessibility in the acronym.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vicki
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Helle Bjarnø <jor@servicestyrelsen.dk>
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Denis on just calling it WCAG-Evaluation Methodology or
>> WCAG-EM as it is a methodology for evaluating website conformance to WCAG.
>> The suggested name Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology gives the
>> impression that it is a more general website accessibility evaluation
>> methodology.
>>
>> Venlig hilsen/ Sincerely
>>
>> Helle Bjarnø
>> Faglig konsulent, synshandicap / Area Consultant Visual Impairment
>> Direct phone +45 72 42 40 29
>> Mobil:             +45 41 73 08 02
>> E-mail:            jor@servicestyrelsen.dk
>>
>> SERVICESTYRELSEN / National Board of Social Services
>> Videnscenter for Handicap og Socialpsykiatri / The National Resource
>> Centre on Disability and Social Psychiatry
>> Landemærket 9 / Landemaerket 9
>> 1119 København K / DK-1119 Copenhagen K
>> Telefon/phone: +45 72 42 41 00
>> www.servicestyrelsen.dk & www..visinfo.dk
>>
>>
>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>> Fra: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] På vegne
>> af Denis Boudreau
>> Sendt: 20. oktober 2011 16:03
>> Til: Robert Yonaitis
>> Cc: Shawn Henry; shadi@w3.org; EOWG (E-mail)
>> Emne: Re: Eval Methodology - ideas for naming
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Personally, I wouldn't want to change the meaning of WCAG because "web
>> content" reaches more broadly than "web conformance" and it's already widely
>> established.
>>
>> I do like the idea of simply calling this WCAG-EM however...
>>
>> /Denis
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2011-10-19, at 3:18 PM, Robert Yonaitis wrote:
>>
>> > Hello All,
>> >
>> > My Brainstorm:
>> > When reading this I became a bit confused:  "Web Content Accessibility
>> > Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0"  -- it just seems limiting. From an educational
>> > standpoint it seems inaccurate and as a developer/educator I see
>> > content as what an application rolls up to the UI (Content and
>> > Application sharing the same space in some cases).
>> >
>> > While it is just a name I would suggest renaming WCAG to be Website
>> > Conformance to Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and this would be
>> > WCAG-EM (Evaluation Methodology) or if you do not think changing the
>> > WCAG name then WCAG-EM with the old words -- however the old name
>> > seems dated and perhaps inaccurate. (One of the hardest things to deal
>> > with is acronyms) Perhaps the Task Force (TF) can consider my
>> > brainstorming here.
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Rob Yonaitis
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dear EOWG,
>> >>
>> >> The WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force (Eval TF) [1] is
>> >> developing a methodology for evaluating website conformance to WCAG 2..0.
>> >>
>> >> We would like your input on a title and shortname for this Methodology.
>> >> Currently the TF is considering this title:
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology The direct acronym
>> >> from this title would be WAEM and the TF also considered WAM or WEM for
>> >> easier pronunciation.
>> >> We also considered shortnames that are not specifically bound to the
>> >> initials of the title, such as SiteAccess or WCAG-check, though none seemed
>> >> particularly good.
>> >> Additional brainstorms are below[2].
>> >>
>> >> Do you have other ideas or reactions to these ideas? Feel free to
>> >> brainstorm other titles and shortnames (real acronyms or not) via e-mail to
>> >> the EOWG list. (Remember "brainstorm" here means put out ideas, even if
>> >> they're not great, with the hope that your ideas might help generate ideas
>> >> from others.) Any input is welcome.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> ~ Shadi & Shawn
>> >>
>> >> [1]  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf.html
>> >>
>> >> [2]
>> >> Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - Methodology for Assessing Website Conformity to WCAG 2.0 Some
>> >> issues and questions raised include:
>> >>  - it does not include the word "accessibility" (though it is part of
>> >> the acronym WCAG, which we would likely expand in the title anyway);
>> >>  - should it be "WCAG 2.0" versus "WCAG 2" (to cover all 2.x
>> >> versions);
>> >>  - should we use the term "assessing" versus "evaluation";
>> >>  - should we use the term "conformity" versus "conformance";
>> >>  - the title does not lend itself to a catchy acronym.
>> >>
>> >> Here are some more ideas to play around with:
>> >>  - Methodology for Assessing Website Conformance to WCAG 2
>> >>  - Methodology for Evaluating Website Conformity to WCAG 2
>> >>  - Methodology for Evaluating Website Accessibility Conformance
>> >>  - Methodology for Conformance Evaluation of Websites for
>> >> Accessibility
>> >>  - Conformance Evaluation of Websites for Accessibility
>> >>  - Conformance Evaluation of Websites to WCAG 2
>> >>
>> >>  - Sampling, Inspection, and Technical Evaluation [of Websites for
>> >> WCAG 2.0] (SITE) ... especially when used in combination like "WCAG 2..0
>> >> SITE"
>> >>  - Methodology for Assessing Website Conformity to WCAG 2.0 (MAC)
>> >>
>> >> Candidate titles (alternative suggestions still welcome):
>> >> - Methodology for Evaluating Website Accessibility Conformance
>> >> (MEWAC)
>> >> - Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0
>> >>
>> >> Also proposal: Website Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0
>> >> (Accessibility is in WCAG we provide the WEM for that)
>> >>
>> >> Open brainstorming for shortname:
>> >> - AccessCheck
>> >> - CheckAccess
>> >> - SiteAccess
>> >> - WCAG-Check
>> >> - AccessSite
>> >> - WCAG-Site
>> >> - SiteCheck
>> >> - CheckSite
>> >> - WAMBAM
>> >> - MCEWA (Methodology for Conformance Evaluation of Websites for
>> >> Accessibility)
>> >> - CEWA (Conformance Evaluation of Websites for Accessibility)
>> >> - CEW2WCAG2 (Conformance Evaluation of Websites to WCAG 2)
>> >> - UWEM (Unified Web Evaluation Methodology)
>> >> - SITE (no meaning yet)
>> >> - MAWA (Methodology for Assessing Website Accessibility)
>> >> - MDWC (Methodology for Determining Website Compliance)
>> >> - EWAMAC (Evaluation Methodology for Assessing Website Accessibility
>> >> Conformity)
>> >> - EMAWC (Evaluation Methodology for Assessing Website Conformity)
>> >> - WEM (Website Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0)
>> >>
>> >> Some acronyms are already existing organizations or festivals
>> >> (including MEWAC).
>> >>
>> >> # Alternatives:
>> >>  - Conformance Evaluation of Websites for Accessibility (CEWA or
>> >> Conf)
>> >>  - Accessibility Conformance Evaluation of Websites (ACEW)
>> >>  - Conformance/Conformity Assessment Procedure (CAP)
>> >>  - Conformance/Conformity Assessment Methodology (CAM)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Evaluation (WAE)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Assessment (WAA)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Methodology (WAM)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Assessment Procedure (WAAP)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Assessment Methodology (WAAM)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Evaluation Procedure (WAEP)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology (WAEM)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Inspection Procedure (WAIP)
>> >>  - Website Accessibility Inspection Methodology (WAIM)
>> >>
>> >> # Not serious:
>> >>  - Conformance of Websites (CoW, WCAG-CoW, or WAI-CoW)
>> >>  - Accessibility Conformance of Websites (A-CoW)
>> >>  - Procedure for Accessibility Inspection (PAI like "pay")
>> >>  - Procedure for Evaluation of Accessibility (PEA)
>> >>  - Procedure for Evaluation of Accessibility Conformance (PEACe)
>> >>  - Accessibility Evaluation of Websites (AEW)
>> >>  - Harmonized Assessment Methodology (HAM)
>> >>  - WCAG 2.0 Harmonized Assessment Methodology (WHAM)
>> >>  - Website Conformance Assessment Guidelines (WCAG)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rob Yonaitis
>> > http://www.yonaitis.com/ | http://twitter.com/ryonaitis
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Rob Yonaitis
http://www.yonaitis.com/ | http://twitter.com/ryonaitis
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 14:41:19 GMT

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