WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.

for

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Mar 22, 2006 11:40AM

On 3/22/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> 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...


There's only disappointment because you're going out of your way to find it.
You're misinterpreting what I've said and I've never once called for a focus
on blind folks to the detriment of other groups.

You're creating a strawman, John. Why you're doing this, I don't know.

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?


Developers should understand how the user agents function. I've heard one
person (in this thread) say that the need for <abbr> is because blind people
can't easily go back and find the expanded version. Such a person needs to
know that right now, this supposed accessibility improvement isn't helping
people, it's only producing unworkable solutions.

(By the way, you didn't offer text expansions of "JAWS" or "AT" in your
email. Why not?)

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...


No, my responses are opinionated and perhaps forcefully presented. But that
doesn't make them self-righteous. The self-righteousness comes from the
tut-tutting of "I expected better of you." Which isn't a counter-opinion,
it's just pointless proclamation of moral superiority.

When I argue, I don't affect a pose of being disappointed in you as a
person; I just lay out why and how I disagree. You may not like the
bluntness, but I don't tut-tut over you or anyone else.

And what of *other* users who may or may not benefit from "marking up
> every acronym or abbreviation"?


Which users benefit from this?

That's what I'm asking here. You're under the impression, as are others,
that accessibility limitations are being overcome by providing <abbr> for
every abbreviation or acronym. (Even though you don't do it your own email
writing). Can you please name those popuation groups?

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.


What on earth would lead you to think that I'm not offering my (informed)
opinion? Again, this is self-righteous rhetorical posturing (OMG you didn't
say it was just an opinion!) rather than directly addressing the argument
I'm making.

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?


Again, "you're on a high horse" is the language of personal attack and has
nothing to do with the argument I'm making. I am attacking your ideas, and
you are responding by impugning my character.

How about, instead of demanding that I stop arguing because you think I'm
too nice, you instead address the questions I'm raising?

Namely -- which populations of people with disabilities benefit from marking
up every occurrence of <abbr>?

(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...)


If you have no time for a flame war then why did you repeatly cast
aspersions on my character rather than addressing the points I raised?

JF
>

What does JF stand for? Why did you not expand this initialism?

--<abbr title="Kenneth">Kynn</abbr>