- From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:51:53 -0400
- To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
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