Re: Eval Methodology - ideas for naming

Hi All--

I agree in principle with Rob, but it seems like "the powers that be" 
have a strong desire to have a descriptive, yet catchy acronym.

Since I'm new to this process, perhaps Shadi can comment on whether we 
have been given a directive or merely a suggestion.

Best,

Mike

On 10/28/2011 10:39 AM, Robert Yonaitis wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 18:52:23 UTC