title #10
Comments
|
For context: The currently proposed title is “Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: Related Aspects of a Web for All”. Above are other brainstorms. |
|
I think the “Related Aspects of a Web for All” works well as a subtitle. +1 for keeping it that way. |
|
+1 |
|
"Related Aspects of a Web for All” is fine and I have no objections to it, however something like
Is much more active and friendly and encouraging -- which I really like. :-) |
|
Devil's advocate: encouraging to do what? This document does not really propose any specific actions or provide any "do's" - working together on what? We previously had mismatch between the expectations raised by the title and the actual content, so I want to be cautious of that. |
|
I think it is a more reference-type of document, and the current subtitle underlines that. I am happy to defer to the editor. |
|
Agree with Eric, this document does not really provide guidance for "working together," +1 to the current subtitle. |
|
Just to make sure what I said previously wasn't lost:
|
|
[medium] Not sure a I like the "Web for All" portion. "Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: Understanding these terms and how they relate" |
|
Data point: Some activities that focus on accessibility have started using "Web for All". This may be a reason for including "Web for All" in the title -- and also for getting in the search results for "Web for All". At the same time, I think Brent's approach may be useful in better communicating the purpose of the document. More brainstorms:
Yeah, these are longer, but since it's just sub-title, I think that's OK. |
|
From Howard:
|
|
/me notes Howard's and Brent's approaches are similar - to explain the purpose more |
|
All are good for me. |
|
Another idea for a title for editor’s discretion:
|
|
Title discussion in 2 Dec telecon |
|
I'm still fine with:
and I still slightly/mildly favor including the buzz-phrase "Web for All" I think this is the most succinct and descriptive title, and I'd be OK with it:
However I note in the minutes at last one -1 for starting with "How". Another brainstorm:
But I don't like that -- it's seems a bit to preachy or something. :( |
|
How about "web for everyone" (playing on TimBL's "this is for everyone" tweet):
|
|
I like this a lot, but should it not be Inclusion rather than Inclusions?
Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: A Web for Everyone
…On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra ***@***.***> wrote:
How about "web for everyone" (playing on TimBL's "this is for everyone"
tweet):
- Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusions: Related Aspects of a Web
for Everyone
- Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusions: Aspects of a Web for
Everyone
- Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusions in a Web for Everyone
- Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusions: A Web for Everyone
- A Web for Everyone: Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusions
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#10 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGqv08insHkDJwN_awUwDoUhW2oIB98Lks5rFqZ4gaJpZM4IXu8o>
.
--
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*
|
|
Yes, sorry. I don't know how the "s" got in there. Typo! |
|
To me, I see this resource as more of an article rather than our usual "how to," or "you need to do this" type resources. That said, I see two ways to go here. Option 1 - Name the article with a descriptive name so that people will know what the article is going to be about before they start reading it, kind of like success criteria 2.4.9 :). Option 2 - Name the article with a creative, catchy name so that people are intrigued to start reading it to find out what it is about. Both of these options are used all the time in naming articles. I am fine with either option that the group likes best. Based on the latest input on this discussion, these would be my choices for either Option we feel is best.
|
|
@bakkenb, I think those are two great options, in principle and in practice. For this document, I’d go with option 2 (creative) – but in general I think we could use this as general guidelines for naming resources. Do you mind if I put this on a wiki page? |
|
Feel free to do so @yatil |
|
I vote for option 2. |
|
+1 for #2 |
|
"Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: Related Aspects of a Web for All" still works for me, but @bakkenb's suggestion of "Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: A Web for Everyone" is more succinct and still captures the idea that there are overlaps. |
|
I probably would have leaned towards option 1 but I'm warming up to 2. If that's the consensus I'm on board. Eric's comment that it was more creative swayed me and I think 2 does have more poetry. |
|
+1 for option 2 |
|
I think it's good/important to keep the "related" idea in the title -- It's telling people what this document does. I don't think "Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: A Web for Everyone" communicates it clearly enough. I think it's better to have a longer more descriptive title, than a short _un_clear title. So I'd prefer "Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: Related Aspects of a Web for Everyone" (I also suspect there are aspects of "a web for everyone" that are not covered in "inclusion" — if so, then the shorter title is inaccurate by leaving things out.) I'd like folks to think about these points... and then if the group decides they want the shortened version, I won't object. :-) |
|
Which aspects of "a web for everyone" is not covered in "inclusion"? |
|
Where did my reply to @slhenry go? argh... I originally was thinking short, sweet, and catchy but now I'm leaning towards your point. I had thought of that as well and then decided, no, it's too long. But the catchy title doesn't really describe the purpose of the article - which is to show how the three relate as well as differ. I retract my +1. Although I'm not sold on "Web for Everyone" being necessary (or adding much to) the title, I'm okay with "Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: Related Aspects of a Web for Everyone." If it helps with searching and cohesion with other concepts then it works for me. But having "Related" or similar is important. |
|
if "relationship" is important, and I appreciate that it is, what about "Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion: |
|
EOWG decided to call it "Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusion" (that is, sub-title is dropped) Minutes of 9 December 2016 |
brainstorming on subtitle
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: