- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:32:18 +0100
- To: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>
- CC: eowg <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
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: - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/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: - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Eval_Methodology_title_brainstorming> Best, Shadi 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 - 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 Monday, 23 January 2012 09:32:44 UTC