WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: Date formats

for

Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)

From: Rachel
Date: Tue, Apr 29 2003 6:57PM
Subject: Date formats
No previous message | Next message →

We are working on a site whose users will primarily be
U.S. citizens.

We need a short way to list dates because of space
issues (as opposed to listing dates out in full, like
April 29, 2003, for example).

We currently display dates on this site in this
format:
04.29.03


I'm wondering if this is the most accessible format,
in particular for screen readers. Would 4/29/03 or
4-29-03 be considered more accessible than using
periods? Or something else?

Thanks, as always, for your insights.
Rcahel Sengers

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Tue, Apr 29 2003 10:50PM
Subject: Re: Date formats
← Previous message | Next message →

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Rachel wrote:

> We are working on a site whose users will primarily be
> U.S. citizens.

On the Web, any site intended for local or otherwise limited use will be
visited by all kinds of people.

> We need a short way to list dates because of space
> issues (as opposed to listing dates out in full, like
> April 29, 2003, for example).

First and foremost, any compact notation should be explicitly described
near the start of the page, or at least in a legend that is referred to
near the start. It is not sufficient to put it at the end, for example,
or below a table, since it will come too late then e.g. in speech mode.

> We currently display dates on this site in this
> format:
> 04.29.03

Such notations have six different interpretations. I don't think there's
any justification for not writing the year in full, limiting the
interpretations to just two and making sure that the user gets at least
the year right.

> I'm wondering if this is the most accessible format,
> in particular for screen readers. Would 4/29/03 or
> 4-29-03 be considered more accessible than using
> periods? Or something else?

I would be primarily worried about the unambiguity of the notation itself,
since that will be relevant to all people. Punctuation and leading zeros
are marginal convenience issues when compared with conveying the
information correctly.

What I specifically suggest is the internationally standardized notation,
ISO 8601, used with hyphens, e.g. 2003-04-29. Naturally it, like any
compact notation that is not universally known, should be explained
suitably. It won't take long, of course: "The dates are written in the
year-month-date notation." This notation is preferable primarily for
unambiguity, but it has other benefits too, as I've explained at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/iso8601.html


--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/


From: James Gagnier
Date: Wed, Apr 30 2003 4:12AM
Subject: Re: Date formats
← Previous message | No next message

Hi Rachel:

Some screen readers can expand dates depending on how they are written and
if the screen reader user has this function enabled in his setting. For
example: Jaws would read 4/29/03 as April 29, 2003. Note that not all
screen reading packages offer this capability but using this date format
would improve usability for those that do.

James


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rachel" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:53 PM
Subject: Date formats


We are working on a site whose users will primarily be
U.S. citizens.

We need a short way to list dates because of space
issues (as opposed to listing dates out in full, like
April 29, 2003, for example).

We currently display dates on this site in this
format:
04.29.03


I'm wondering if this is the most accessible format,
in particular for screen readers. Would 4/29/03 or
4-29-03 be considered more accessible than using
periods? Or something else?

Thanks, as always, for your insights.
Rcahel Sengers

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/





----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/