Re: comments on WCAG-EM

Hi Liam,

Thank you for your comments! With your permission I'll resort them to 
highlight the key ones from an outreach / messaging perspective.

The train for choosing another name for Evaluation and Report Language 
(EARL) has long passed (I think since 2001). Here background on EARL:
  - <>

The title Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0 
seems most favored so far but it is not set in stone. The shortname 
WCAG-EM is even more in flux at this stage and I would particularly 
appreciate EOWG input and suggestions on these two points.

For discussion, could you expand the acronyms NINJAA and 3-WOK? I'm also 
unsure about the line between catchy vs funny acronyms...

Here again some of the previous brainstorms on titles and shortnames:
  - <>


On 20.1.2012 17:57, Liam McGee wrote:
> Hi Shadi - comments for you to do with as you wish. Probably didn't need
> typos and grammar at this point, but included them as I saw them.
> /Thoughts on naming/ - test all versions to see if they are gogin to be
> easy to find when Googled. For example, EARL is not - too many other
> things called EARL. WCAG-EM is similarly not going to be easy - Google
> associates WCAG-EM with stuff in WCAG mentioning em units. So...
> something with non-standard spelling like NINJAA or 3-WOK would be
> better than NINJA or EWOK. In fact, I *really* like 3-WOK. Manages to
> combine leet-speak with pronouncability (three-wok). And a starwars
> reference, natch.
> OK, on to the more serious stuff.
> 1.4 "Resources (related to the sample)
> An RDF sequence of resources (of any type)"
> Suggest: Link 'RDF' to definition
> Rationale: acronym
> 2. "webdesign"
> Suggest "web design"
> rationale: more common usage
> 3.
> Suggest: Provide an example of a conforming expression of scope
> Rationale: hard to comprehend the action the reader is expected to take.
> 3. "This type of resource must be expressed via an instance of the
> earl:Content Class."
> Suggest: link to resource describing EARL Content Class
> rationale: few people familiar with EARL
> 3. "Technologies used on webpages
> Definition needed"
> Query for EOWG: For us to supply? Are we talking about widgets such as
> embedded Youtube, Facebook or Twitter content?
> 3. "Devided scope
> Part of the website is part of another evaluation. An example could be
> that part of a complete process is covered by another evaluation. "
> Suggest: Divided
> Rationale: typo
> 3. "Like with an external creditcard page on a shopping website."
> Suggest: "For example, an external credit card payment page on a
> shopping website."
> Rationale: less colloquial
> 3. "Special content
> Definition needed: Non-essential content that cannot be made accessible."
> Suggest: This is one of the largest can of Worms in the document -
> presume WG will spend some time on reviewing the eventual definition of
> this against some use cases.
> 3.1 "For most websites this will consist of a domain name and top level
> domain (like .com or .eu)."
> Suggest: "For many websites this will consist of a domain name and top
> level domain (like .com or .eu)."
> Rationale: There are a lot of non-US websites that will have a
> domain.ccSLD.ccTLD format.
> 3.1 "All pages that use the base URI, both because they have an
> extensive directory structure or use of sub-(sub-) domains fall within
> the scope unless there is a clearly described exception."
> Suggest: "All pages that use the base URI, whether because they have an
> extensive directory structure or use of sub-(sub-) domains, fall within
> the scope unless there is a clearly described exception."
> Rationale: clearer grammar
> 3.1: "Some websites have multiple domains linked for the same content
> and dynamics, in that case the scope is limited to the primary domain. A
> conformity declaration would in that case also be valid for the other
> websites."
> Suggest: add example for clarification.
> Rationale: clarity
> 3.2 "pictograms"
> Suggest: "icons" or "graphical elements"
> Rationale: common usage
> 3.3 "Complete processes can be excluded from the scope in specific
> circumstances that will be described in this subclause"
> Query: is this reference to the subclause an editor's note?
> 4.1 "destinguish"
> Suggest: "distinguish"
> Rationale: Typo
> 4.1.1 "resource"
> Suggest: "page" and define page so that non-page resources are included
> within the definition
> Rationale: consistency and common usage. 'Web Pages' used throughout the
> doc.
> 4.1.1 "Resources representative of each category of resources having a
> substantially distinct "look and feel" (typically representative of
> distinct underlying site "templates") (if identifiable)."
> Suggest: "One or more pages to represent a substantially distinct "look
> and feel". This would typically be an example of each distinct
> underlying template for page markup." - note that I'm not terribly happy
> with this either... any better suggestions?
> Rationale: hard to understand
> 4.1.2 "Task Orientated Resources are the pages necessary for completing
> the complete processes on the website. They provide examples of real use
> cases for the website. This might include tasks such as to source
> certain information, place an order or participate in a discussion."
> Suggest: "Task Orientated Resources are the sets of pages comprising
> complete processes on the website. Examples include the purchase of an
> item from product description through to purchase confirmation;
> participating in a discussion"
> Rationale: clarity
> The rest: not sure I can comment much at this stage, as still in extreme
> draft.
> Cheers
> L.

Shadi Abou-Zahra -
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 09:32:44 UTC