WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.

for

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Mar 22, 2006 11:20AM

Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> On 3/22/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> The suggestion was given "spell out the whole thing, and then use
>> <abbr> on all subsequent appearances." But that proposal leads to
>> something which you (Penny) admit is undesirable. Is this really
>> "increased accessibility" or is it subjecting blind folks to
>> something which is unpleasant?
>
> C'mon Kynn, I would expect better than that. "Blind folks" is but a
> segment of the spectrum - we aren't developing for specific user
> groups
> are we?
>
> Did you miss the post I was replying to? Because it dealt with
> someone saying they wouldn't want to hear it repeatedly. Your
> expectations of "better" are off here because you've cut out the
> context.

I edit for brevity. Your suggestion that developers do (or not do)
something for one user-group ("Blind folks") ignores the potential that
other user-groups (anecdotal or otherwise) may be short-served by not
providing the fullest possibility afforded to us in the current
HTML/XHTML spec. I expected a "fuller" understanding from you, as you
have been doing accessibility for some time now. Focusing on "Blind
folks" to the detriment of other user-groups is, shall I say,
disappointing...

If a user does not want to hear every instance of the expanded abbr or
acronym element in their screen reader, they can turn it off (and I even
provided instructions on how for JAWS users). Ideally, this should be
something that users could toggle on or off via a keystroke command from
within their user-agent/AT set-up; the fact that this is not possible
now is (I repeat) a user-agent issue. Are you suggesting then that
developers should develop for user agents and not for improved
accessibility?

I concede there are currently issues with screen-readers and how they
deal with abbr and acronym, but I stop short in telling people what they
should or should not do - be aware of the issues, make your own decision
based on the facts, and be prepared to justify why you did or didn't do
something.

>
> (For the record, I didn't expect better from you; in general, this
> list is full of people who look for the "gotchas!" and fail to
> understand context, instead looking for things out of context with
> which to get self-righteous about.)

What self-righteous? You are giving an opinion, based upon what? Your
"impression"? I am giving a counter opinion - at the end I even stated
that it is a judgment call for the individual developer. Do what you
think is best, but be aware of the impact of your decision, one way or
the other. I would further suggest that it is *your* flame-bating
responses that are self-righteous...

>
> This is clearly a user-agent issue, and while we should be
> cognoscente of the impact; I cringe when we start making decisions
> based
> upon specific user agent "requirements" vs. "the correct thing to do".
> For now, it is (like many things) a judgment call at the developer's
> end.
>
> What does that have to do with that I said?
>
> As has been noted, there is either "all on" or "all off" for
> screenreaders. Part of the impact is understanding that when you
> think you're being all good and wonderful by marking up every acronym
> or abbreviation (which most people don't do, and shouldn't do),
> you're either (a) not providing any information to screenreader
> users, or (b) providing way too much information to screenreader
> users.

And what of *other* users who may or may not benefit from "marking up
every acronym or abbreviation"? Too bad for them - JAWS and WindowEyes
screws up on this so we won't do it? If you can justify that position
(internally, to your client, or otherwise), THEN FINE. But be very
clear that it is your opinion, and not a universally shared one at that.


>
> I think that if the expansion is going to be claimed to be useful, it
> makes more sense to require that the full version be used every time.
> It makes as much sense as requiring <abbr> for every abbreviated
> form.

Yes... "you think...". However, your opinion is as baseless in hard
data as mine, so get off your high horse for a bit why don't ya?

(Kynn is, of course, welcome to comment on this one way or the other. I
however will retire from the discussion - I have no time for a flame
war, which this could easily digress to...)

JF
--
John Foliot <EMAIL REMOVED>
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053