RE: [more] naming for "Methodology"

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 title. The methodology itself isn't about accessibility, but how to evaluate conformance with accessibility guidelines.

"- should it be "WCAG 2.0" versus "WCAG 2" (to cover all 2.x versions);"

        If WCAG 2.x is likely, we should make the methodology as responsive to that as possible.

"- should we use the term "assessing" versus "evaluation";"

        Evaluation would be more appropriate. Evaluation includes deeper analytical thinking, where as assessment is usually used where a lighter touch is required.

"- should we use the term "conformity" versus "conformance";"


        Linguistically I don't believe it makes much difference. In terms of ease of speaking/reading, conformance probably makes more sense.

"- the title does not lend itself to a catchy acronym."

        Is this really an issue? Surely the title should be determined based on accuracy and readability, not on whether it has a catchy acronym?



Regards,
Léonie.

--
Nomensa - humanising technology

Léonie Watson, Director of Accessibility & Web Development

tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333
twitter: @we_are_Nomensa @LeonieWatson

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra
Sent: 10 October 2011 09:01
To: Eval TF
Subject: [more] naming for "Methodology"

Dear group,

It seems that there is some support for:
  - 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

The previous ideas are included below too. Happy brainstorming.

Best,
   Shadi


On 6.10.2011 07:18, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Dear group,
>
> As trivial as it may sound it is time for us to think about a name for
> the Methodology, so that we can start fleshing it out.
>
> Here are some brainstorms to get your creativity flowing:
>
>
> # Favorites:
> - 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)
>
>
> # 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)
>
>
> Best,
> Shadi
>

--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 21:12:29 UTC