WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: abbreviations

for

From: Geof Collis
Date: May 28, 2010 8:06AM

What are you talking about?

I've been advocating all along that it should be expanded on its
first instance, just as the WCAG says I can.





At 08:58 AM 5/28/2010, you wrote:
>If we can start punishing users for their actions then I need to go back
>through my site and remove all the IE hacks and concessions I've had to
>make.
>
>If they print the page then they don't get the abbreviations, yes. But
>that's why it should be expanded on first use. If they read it on the
>page then there's extra functionality. By your logic we shouldn't link
>to anything because tapping on the printed paper won't take them anywhere.
>
>There's functionality which enriches the content but which still conveys
>the original intent if ignored or not displayed. Isn't that the whole
>point of accessibility?
>
>Dan Conley
>Information Specialist
>Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and
>Exchange (CIRRIE)
>University at Buffalo, Health Sciences Library B6
>Phone: (716) 829-5728
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>http://cirrie.buffalo.edu
>
>On 5/28/2010 8:48 AM, Geof Collis wrote:
> > So whose fault is it if they dont start at the beginning of the
> > content? That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps we should have a
> > tag that says start here in case you miss any
> > accessibility features on this page?
> >
> > If people use the abbr and acr tags, what happens if someone prints
> > off the page? Copies from one medium to another? The real meaning
> > doesn't go with it so how does that help?
> > At 08:21 AM 5/28/2010, you wrote:
> >> > I have an idea, why not just use the current example that I posted,
> >> > expand the abbreviation in the first instance and be done
> with it. :O)
> >>
> >> And then someone skips to an anchor halfway down the page and misses it.
> >>
> >> I think what's perhaps the most important thing I've gotten out of this
> >> discussion is that many people don't care about abbreviations, and those
> >> people have and use the ability to ignore them completely. The abbr tag
> >> isn't being forced down anyone's throats (which was my initial fear).
> >>
> >> There are some instances where an abbreviation isn't necessary. My
> >> example of HIV in an article titled Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a
> >> pretty obvious example. But I'm very hesitant to say I'm going to
> >> approach this on a case by case basis, because then I declare myself the
> >> gatekeeper of what's 'obvious' or not, which won't be the same from
> >> person to person.
> >>
> >> If something is an abbreviation, shouldn't it by definition be given the
> >> abbreviation markup? If you don't like the underline it can be styled
> >> away. If people ignore it then that seems, for the most part, to be by
> >> their design (and if not, then in each of the articles I work on and in
> >> any well written document I'd expect there to be the 'expand on first
> >> use' practice anyway)
> >>
> >> Dan Conley
> >> Information Specialist
> >> Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and
> >> Exchange (CIRRIE)
> >> University at Buffalo, Health Sciences Library B6
> >> Phone: (716) 829-5728
> >> <EMAIL REMOVED>
> >> http://cirrie.buffalo.edu
> >>
> >> On 5/28/2010 7:36 AM, Geof Collis wrote:
> >>> I have an idea, why not just use the current example that I posted,
> >>> expand the abbreviation in the first instance and be done with it. :O)
> >>>
> >>> At 12:23 AM 5/28/2010, you wrote:
> >>>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On the other hand, using<abbr> or<acronym> markup would help
> >>>>> remarkably
> >>>>> little if at all in reducing confusion. To begin with, the vast
> >>>>> majority of
> >>>>> people use browsing software that either ignores such markup completely
> >>>>> or
> >>>>> uses it in misleading ways, like underlining the element's content in a
> >>>>> manner that suggests that it is some kind of a link, even though it
> >>>>> isn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Jukka,
> >>>>
> >>>> How/what would you propose be done instead? If we can agree that a
> >>>> mechanism that aids in disambiguation is a good thing - yet currently
> >>>> <abbr> is failing at that - is there a better way? Should
> user agents do
> >>>> more, or should we look to another mechanism instead? With
> on-going work
> >>>> within HTML5, and an accessibility Task Force at the W3C (that involves
> >>>> browser makers) currently very active, could a better solution be put
> >>>> forward? Now is the time to specifically define what we need and what we
> >>>> should have.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone on this list have any ideas?
> >>>>
> >>>> JF
> >>>>
> >>>>