E-mail List Archives
Thread: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
Number of posts in this thread: 43 (In chronological order)
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Mon, Mar 20 2006 12:50PM
Subject: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
No previous message | Next message →
As a government agency, we use a lot of abbreviations. Authors are
asking if they should use ABBR tags or not and I didn't have a concise
answer.
It seems like there are two viable options:
Use abbr tags:
<abbr title="Hypertext Markup Language">HTML</abbr> is use to markup the
content of a page so a web browser can render it. HTML was invented...
Just spell it out:
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is use to markup the content of a page
so a web browser can render it. HTML was invented...
The latter would seem to be more accessible for screen readers as
TITLEs, IIRC, aren't often read by the screen reader by default.
In addition, it wouldn't require anyone to mouse over the item to see
the full text, either.
Thoughts?
-Darrel
From: Glenda Watson Hyatt
Date: Mon, Mar 20 2006 1:20PM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Darrel,
I would definitely spell out the first occurrance on each page, for the
benefit of those [sighted or not] who aren't familiar with the abbreviation.
To me, this is all part of "accessible communication".
I'm sure others here will have input on the current status of ABBR.
Good luck.
Cheers,
Glenda
Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.webaccessibility.biz
Watch for my autobiography I'll Do It Myself due out November 2006!
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Austin, Darrel
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 11:40 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
As a government agency, we use a lot of abbreviations. Authors are
asking if they should use ABBR tags or not and I didn't have a concise
answer.
It seems like there are two viable options:
Use abbr tags:
<abbr title="Hypertext Markup Language">HTML</abbr> is use to markup the
content of a page so a web browser can render it. HTML was invented...
Just spell it out:
Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is use to markup the content of a page
so a web browser can render it. HTML was invented...
The latter would seem to be more accessible for screen readers as
TITLEs, IIRC, aren't often read by the screen reader by default.
In addition, it wouldn't require anyone to mouse over the item to see
the full text, either.
Thoughts?
-Darrel
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Mar 20 2006 2:40PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Austin, Darrel wrote:
> As a government agency, we use a lot of abbreviations. Authors are
> asking if they should use ABBR tags or not and I didn't have a concise
> answer.
The correct concise answer is "No", but the problem is that the W3C
recommendations say "Yes" - for _all_ abbreviations! See
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-abbreviated-and-foreign
(Note that the page http://www.w3.org/WAI/ uses abbreviations without
<abbr> markup, though.)
For reasons to avoid <abbr>, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/abbr.html
Note that "support" to <abbr> in IE 7 will be one more reason
_not_ to use <abbr>.
> <abbr title="Hypertext Markup Language">HTML</abbr> is use to markup the
> content of a page so a web browser can render it. HTML was invented...
Browsers that "support" <abbr> markup typically display a dotted line
below the abbreviation. This is confusing, since it makes it look like a
link and it draws attention and raises questions, thereby making smooth
reading harder.
Besides, it is highly debatable whether "HTML" is really an abbreviation
except by origin. An abbreviation proper is something that can be replaced
by its expansion (the unabbreviated expression) without changing the
meaning. However, saying that something is a HyperText Markup Language
document is not equivalent to calling it an HTML document. The string
"HTML" is the name of a particular hypertext markup language - and it is
far better know than the "expansion".
> Just spell it out:
>
> Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is use to markup the content of a page
> so a web browser can render it. HTML was invented...
Right. Or alternatively "HTML (HyperText Markup Language) is used...",
but this is a matter of style.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Juan Ulloa
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 3:50PM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
My recommendation would be to spell it out, specially the first time you
use it. Then, in future uses of the abbreviation, I would start using
the abbr tag.
Using the <abbr> tag is tricky because IE6 completely ignores the tag.
There are some DOM based javascript tricks that you could use to get IE6
to behave as it would support the <abbr> tag. I'm not sure of a best
solution, but here is an example I've used in the past:
http://facweb.bcc.ctc.edu/julloa/html/abbr.htm.
Jukka Korpela wrote:
> Note that "support" to <abbr> in IE 7 will be one more reason
> _not_ to use <abbr>.
It's my understanding that IE & will support the <abbr> tag.
Juan C. Ulloa
Webmaster, Web Services
Chair, Employee Pluralism Committee
Bellevue Community College
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
425.564.2487
N258
:-)
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Tue, Mar 21 2006 4:10PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/21/06, Juan Ulloa < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> My recommendation would be to spell it out, specially the first time you
> use it. Then, in future uses of the abbreviation, I would start using
> the abbr tag.
For every use of the abbreviation?
Why would you do this?
Why not simply stop using the abbreviated form?
--Kynn
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 2:30AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> On 3/21/06, *Juan Ulloa* < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >> wrote:
>
> My recommendation would be to spell it out, specially the first time you
> use it. Then, in future uses of the abbreviation, I would start using
> the abbr tag.
>
>
>
> For every use of the abbreviation?
>
> Why would you do this?
>
> Why not simply stop using the abbreviated form?
Because the full form may be very long. I wouldn't want to read the
full form every time and I certainly wouldn't want to hear it every time.
Penny
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 8:30AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, Penny Roberts < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Because the full form may be very long. I wouldn't want to read the
> full form every time and I certainly wouldn't want to hear it every time.
Then why are people assuming that it should be included in <abbr> every
time?
Surely current user agents AREN'T smart enough to go "okay, I've already
read this, so I won't read the <abbr>'s title out loud this time."
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?
--Kynn
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:10AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> On 3/22/06, *Penny Roberts* < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >> wrote:
>
> Because the full form may be very long. I wouldn't want to read the
> full form every time and I certainly wouldn't want to hear it every
> time.
>
>
> Then why are people assuming that it should be included in <abbr> every
> time?
>
> Surely current user agents AREN'T smart enough to go "okay, I've already
> read this, so I won't read the <abbr>'s title out loud this time."
>
> 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?
So this is another case of what the UAs do as against what they should do.
I don't want to read the full form every time; but I *do* want to be
able to hover over it and see what it stands for. (I was on just such a
site yesterday: full of acronyms and abbreviations. I'm sure that they
were given in full somewhere but I didn't have time to be whizzing up
and down a page finding the full form. Thankfully each and every
acronym was tagged and I could hover to my heart's content.)
The point that someone else made is that screen readers *don't* read
the full form from the <abbr> title so only writing it in full would
currently cause a blind user to hear it every time.
Shouldn't we be arguing that screen readers *should* be clever enough
to know that something is tagged as an abbreviation and offer an aural
cue that an explanation is available if required? Isn't it just as bad
to expect a blind user to go back to the start of a page to find out
what an abbreviation or acronym means as to read the whole thing in full
every time?
Penny
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:30AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> Then why are people assuming that it should be included in <abbr>
> every time?
>
> Surely current user agents AREN'T smart enough to go "okay, I've
> already read this, so I won't read the <abbr>'s title out loud this
> time."
Sadly, this is correct (at least for JAWS) - it's an "always on or
always off" setting. (JAWS manager >>> HTML Settings >>> Read Acronym
and read abbr)
However, the <ABBR> "tag" is for more than just screen reading
technology (right?). I often style it (and <acronym>) up differently
(even using cursor:help;) along with the Title attribute so that when it
is moused-over (for example) it "exposes" the spelled-out text. This
can be useful for those with some cognitive issues.
>
> 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? 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.
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 9:50AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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.
(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.)
> 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.
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.
--Kynn
PS: The idea held by some that cognitively disabled people use mouseover
tooltips to understand abbreviations and acronyms seems poorly supported and
rather unrealistic. I'd love to hear actual studies, rather than
pie-in-the-sky declarations, based on actual users with disabilities and how
they use the web.
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:00AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
> Can you explain why you feel that acronyms and abbreviations are a content
> type requiring specific markup but there is no requirement for complex words
> to likewise be defined each time they appear? Which disabled populations
> need acronym expansions but don't need word definitions?
Poor example. A word like "selfindulgence" or "flamebait" does make
sense, even if I don't necessarily understand it, however an acronym
like IA could be "Interaction Architect", "Information Architecture"
or "International Alcoholism" depending on the context it is used in.
Same for abbreviations like "int", which could be international,
intentional, integer or intrinsic to name just a few.
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:10AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> complex words to likewise be defined each time they appear? Which
> disabled populations need acronym expansions but don't need word
> definitions?
Who said anything about just disabled populations? Accessibility is for
*everyone*, right? Expanded acronyms are useful for all sorts of people
(me for one); but I don't want them written out in full every time: I
*want* the option of hovering and finding out it what it stands for.
Penny
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 10:20AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, Penny Roberts < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Shouldn't we be arguing that screen readers *should* be clever
> enough
> to know that something is tagged as an abbreviation and offer an aural
> cue that an explanation is available if required? Isn't it just as bad
> to expect a blind user to go back to the start of a page to find out
> what an abbreviation or acronym means as to read the whole thing in full
> every time?
Do you feel the same thing applies to definitions of words?
In other words, should there be markup that defines complex words each time
the word is used in a document?
Can you explain why you feel that acronyms and abbreviations are a content
type requiring specific markup but there is no requirement for complex words
to likewise be defined each time they appear? Which disabled populations
need acronym expansions but don't need word definitions?
--Kynn
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 11:20AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> On 3/22/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 11:30AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>
> > 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, [...]
PS: You're deliberately misinterpreting the use of "think" here in order to
claim "baselessness in hard data." Can you please address the point raised
-- rather than trying to score rhetorical cheap shots?
Thanks!
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 11:40AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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>
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 12:10PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, Penny Roberts < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> > complex words to likewise be defined each time they appear? Which
> > disabled populations need acronym expansions but don't need word
> > definitions?
>
> Who said anything about just disabled populations? Accessibility is for
> *everyone*, right?
No, web accessibility in a general sense is about disabled populations. For
example:
"The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops strategies, guidelines, and
resources to help make the Web accessible to people with disabilities."
Web accessibility is primarily about people with specific needs due to
disabilities. There are benefits which extend to other user groups as well,
sure.
But no, you can't just pretend that web accessibility is about you
(presuming from your comment that you're not a person with disabilities)
instead of about enabling access for populations with disabilities.
Expanded acronyms are useful for all sorts of people
> (me for one); but I don't want them written out in full every time: I
> *want* the option of hovering and finding out it what it stands for.
It's nice that you want something. It would be nice if you could get what
you want. But web accessibility is not about what people without
disabilities find pleasant or useful.
You could make an argument that it's good practice to provide <abbr>, and
sure, I agree with you. It's also good practice to have attractive fonts and
nice color design, and so on. But for the most part these are not
accessibility arguments per se if they address "everyone," they're simply
good web design arguments.
Accessibility is a subset of good web design that focuses on people with
disabilities. And so far, tagging up every short form of a word with an
<abbr> tag doesn't sound very much like an accessibility issue, if there not
identifiable disabled populations that will benefit from this. (Feel free to
prove me wrong by identifying some.)
--Kynn
From: Juan Ulloa
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 12:30PM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
> Why not simply stop using the abbreviated form?
I think that there are many instances where you would want to always use
the abbreviated form: Mr., Ms., Mrs,. Etc. Also, I'd prefer not to
always have to spell out the W3C, HTML, and many other abbreviations and
some acronyms.
Juan
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 12:50PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/22/06, Christian Heilmann < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Poor example. A word like "selfindulgence" or "flamebait" does make
> sense, even if I don't necessarily understand it, however an acronym
> like IA could be "Interaction Architect", "Information Architecture"
> or "International Alcoholism" depending on the context it is used in.
But we're presuming that it /is/ used in context here, however.
Aren't we?
If the use of "IA" is going to be unclear in a given context, that's an
English [*] writing problem. Throwing in tags which won't provide
information in some cases -- and provide too much information in other
situations -- doesn't actually solve the real problem: poor writing.
Requiring accessibility considerations for all abbreviations at all times
flies in the face of common sense and actually could, if people get lazy,
lead to worse writing instead of better.
Which populations with disabilities are served by tagging every abbreviation
with <abbr>?
--Kynn
[*] Substitute whatever the appropriate document language is for "English."
PS: How would you mark up the following text with <abbr>? Specifically the
"IA?"
> however an acronym
> like IA could be "Interaction Architect", "Information Architecture"
> or "International Alcoholism" depending on the context it is used in.
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Mar 22 2006 1:40PM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
> No, web accessibility in a general sense is about disabled
> populations.
That's the biggest problem with a lot of current accessibility thinking.
WAY to many people assume that accessibility issues mean 'accomodating
blind people' and fail to see the bigger picture.
My personal definition of web accessibility is:
Striving to make more of your content usable for more people (ie,
customers) on more devices.
-Darrel
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 3:50AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> 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.
Maybe not intentionally but that is certainly how your responses to this
thread have come over. I mentioned bothreading and hearing and you
narrowed it down to "blind folks".
> 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.
If you are going to quote me at least get it right: what I actually said
was that expecting a blind person to go back to the beginning to find
the expanded version was equally as bad as making them hear it in full
(which referred to your suggestion of not abbreviating). Neither
situation is good.
Penny
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 4:10AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
It sounds like the ideal (for screen readers) would be having 3 options:
1. read all titles from acronyms & abbr (and other?) elements.
2. Warn of items with titles (with a little 'bing' or something), with a
specific key stroke/combo to read the expansion.
3. Read none.
With the middle option being default, and roughly the same has having an
underline that visual interfaces provide.
Would that be possible/plausible?
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 5:20AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Alastair Campbell wrote:
> It sounds like the ideal (for screen readers) would be having 3
> options:
>
> 1. read all titles from acronyms & abbr (and other?) elements.
>
> 2. Warn of items with titles (with a little 'bing' or something),
> with a specific key stroke/combo to read the expansion.
>
> 3. Read none.
>
> With the middle option being default, and roughly the same has having
> an underline that visual interfaces provide.
>
> Would that be possible/plausible?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
Alastair,
It *should* be, but it appears that currently it is not. This would
certainly be a benefit, but would require some work by the good folk at
Freedom Scientific. Perhaps a concerted campaign from both users and
developers for them to consider this? Their feedback form can be found
at:
http://tinyurl.com/q68q2
Hey everybody! Spend 2 seconds and pass on the suggestion... If they
get a whack of them all at once, perhaps, just perhaps, it will float to
the top of the pile of proposed improvements?
Cheers!
JF
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 5:30AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Alastair Campbell wrote:
> It sounds like the ideal (for screen readers) would be having 3 options:
>
> 1. read all titles from acronyms & abbr (and other?) elements.
>
> 2. Warn of items with titles (with a little 'bing' or something), with a
> specific key stroke/combo to read the expansion.
>
> 3. Read none.
>
> With the middle option being default, and roughly the same has having an
> underline that visual interfaces provide.
>
> Would that be possible/plausible?
That's what I had in mind too - an aural signal that a title/tooltip is
available. It really should to be possible!
Penny
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 5:40AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> Web accessibility is primarily about people with specific needs due to
> disabilities. There are benefits which extend to other user groups as
> well, sure.
>
> But no, you can't just pretend that web accessibility is about you
> (presuming from your comment that you're not a person with disabilities)
> instead of about enabling access for populations with disabilities.
I am classed as disabled by my workplace but since the disability is
asthma it has no bearing on my use of the web. I was using me as an
example because I use the web every day in my job (as a user).
However, I am one of the x% of people who would have been dyslexic had
I not developed coping strategies very early on. I have a very poor
memory for some things (like acronyms!): is that attributable to the
brain patterns/links that cause dyslexia? I don't know. [Memory
malfunction is a facet of dyslexia for some sufferers.]
> Accessibility is a subset of good web design that focuses on people with
> disabilities. And so far, tagging up every short form of a word with an
> <abbr> tag doesn't sound very much like an accessibility issue, if there
> not identifiable disabled populations that will benefit from this. (Feel
> free to prove me wrong by identifying some.)
Anyone with impaired memory through age, stroke etc.. People with motor
disabilities? Using an assistive device which is voice activated or
controlled by limited physical motion or by mouth might find it
fatiguing to seek out the first instance of the acronym (and equally
fatiguing working through the additional text if it were written in full
every time). Possibly some forms of dyslexia.
Penny
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 5:50AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
John Foliot wrote:
> It *should* be, but it appears that currently it is not. This would
> certainly be a benefit, but would require some work by the
> good folk at Freedom Scientific.
Certainly, I just wanted to run it past a few people first, if anyone is
going to spot problems on this type of thing it will be this list :-)
I'm guessing from the quick support that this is considered appropriate
behaviour for a screen reader?
Also, does it generalise well to other elements with titles, or is it
best kept to acronym and abbr elements?
> Perhaps a concerted campaign from both users and
> developers for them to consider this?
I have a friend on the beta program, so I have an inside ear there.
Except that I think my friend used up their "get HTML standards
supported" quota on this cycle with some stuff on complex tables ;)
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: zara
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 6:00AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Ben non, c'est pas
From: zara
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 6:20AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Oh dear, I am so sorry, I replied to the wrong message. I obviously need some coffee. My apologies.
Catherine
--
Catherine Roy, consultante
www.catherine-roy.net
514.525.9490
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:webaim-forum-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of zara
> Sent: March 23, 2006 7:52 AM
> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
> Subject: RE: [WebAIM] ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
>
> Ben non, c'est pas
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 8:30AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
If you all don't mind, I would like to share my limited observations on
abbreviations. I will admit that these observations are limited to
people who are blind.
Where I work we have an abbreviation and acronym rich environment. If
someone can turn it into an acronym or abbreviation, they will. In
fact, we have acronyms and abbreviations that look the same but stand
for something different depending on the context. It seems as long as
the person who is blind has heard the acronym once or twice, the the
individual seems to understand what the acronym or abbreviation stands
for.
During the past several years I have worked on accessibility, I can only
recall once where use of acronyms and abbreviations caused noticeable
problems for users who are blind. It was an application that displayed
an employee's paycheck information. However it appeared that even
people without disabilities were having difficulty figuring out those
acronyms and abbreviations.
It makes me suspect that abbreviations and acronyms do not create
additional accessibility problems for people who are blind or have low
vision. If abbreviations and acronyms do cause problems, they are the
type of problems that users without disabilities have.
It would be fantastic if we had good data to base our opinions
on--particularly, if we could include additional groups of people with
different kinds of disabilities.
While I enjoy discussing the various approaches for solving
accessibility problems with my colleagues, it would be nice if we
actually had quantifiable data to argue over.
Does anyone know of anyone who is doing some good solid research on
these kind of topics?
Thanks,
Tim
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>Penny Roberts
>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:43 AM
>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
>
>Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Maybe not intentionally but that is certainly how your
>responses to this thread have come over. I mentioned
>bothreading and hearing and you narrowed it down to "blind folks".
>
>> 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.
>
>If you are going to quote me at least get it right: what I
>actually said was that expecting a blind person to go back to
>the beginning to find the expanded version was equally as bad
>as making them hear it in full (which referred to your
>suggestion of not abbreviating). Neither situation is good.
>
>Penny
>
>
>
>
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 9:10AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> Where I work we have an abbreviation and acronym rich environment. If
> someone can turn it into an acronym or abbreviation, they will.
Yes, I work in one of those too. Sometimes a lot of thought goes into
the acronym to make it sound really catchy. I've even come
> In fact, we have acronyms and abbreviations that look the same but stand
> for something different depending on the context.
Yes again! That's where I find I get into real problems. Sometimes the
context doesn't help either since all more than one would fit.
> It seems as long as
> the person who is blind has heard the acronym once or twice, the the
> individual seems to understand what the acronym or abbreviation stands
> for.
I can forget from one day to the next what even a commonly used acronym
stands for. (Who am I trying to kid... I can forget from one *moment*
to the next!)
> While I enjoy discussing the various approaches for solving
> accessibility problems with my colleagues, it would be nice if we
> actually had quantifiable data to argue over.
>
> Does anyone know of anyone who is doing some good solid research on
> these kind of topics?
Sounds like a good topic for a thesis.
Penny
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 10:50AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/23/06, Penny Roberts < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> If you are going to quote me at least get it right: what I actually said
> was that expecting a blind person to go back to the beginning to find
> the expanded version was equally as bad as making them hear it in full
> (which referred to your suggestion of not abbreviating). Neither
> situation is good.
Why is a blind person having to go back to the beginning of a document to
find the expansion of a term any different from a sighted person having to
go back to the beginning of a document? Or, alternately, remember the
definition for the space of the page?
It seems that many people are convinced that acronyms and abbreviations are
an accessibility barrier in and of themselves. Can you explain for which
populations of people with disabilities this is true, and how exactly
providing abbrevation expansion via <abbr> helps?
--Kynn
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 11:20AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/23/06, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> It sounds like the ideal (for screen readers) would be having 3 options:
> 1. read all titles from acronyms & abbr (and other?) elements.
> 2. Warn of items with titles (with a little 'bing' or something), with a
> specific key stroke/combo to read the expansion.
> 3. Read none.
> With the middle option being default, and roughly the same has having an
> underline that visual interfaces provide.
> Would that be possible/plausible?
Certainly possible and plausible. What do users of screenreaders want?
--Kynn
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 12:00PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/23/06, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Personally I like the idea because it provides an equivalent to the
> visual display. I think it might also be useful to do the same for
> images as well, as some have titles providing extra information.
Probably an even better GENERAL solution is for screen readers to provide
better support for tooltips of any kind that activate on hover or focus.
This would solve the "does the <abbr title> show up for people with
screenreaders like it does for those without?" problem, as well as several
other potential problems.
--Kynn
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 12:40PM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
> Probably an even better GENERAL solution is for screen
> readers to provide better support for tooltips of any kind
> that activate on hover or focus.
Yes, although I'm not sure if the general effect would be beneficial if
it was done for all titles. E.g. some CMSs add titles to text links in
navigation that simply repeat the text in the link. Very silly.
Still, if it was just a 'bing' (I think "audio icon" is the appropriate
term), or a quick verbal warning, even that wouldn't be too bad.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 1:20PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/23/06, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Yes, although I'm not sure if the general effect would be beneficial if
> it was done for all titles. E.g. some CMSs add titles to text links in
> navigation that simply repeat the text in the link. Very silly.
>
> Still, if it was just a 'bing' (I think "audio icon" is the appropriate
> term), or a quick verbal warning, even that wouldn't be too bad.
Could be done in aural CSS, yeah.
abbr[title] { cue-before: url("softbing.wav"); }
The browser would still need to support some way of reading it out, though,
on demand.
--Kynn
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Thu, Mar 23 2006 2:20PM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn wrote:
> Certainly possible and plausible.
Excellent :)
> What do users of screenreaders want?
Good question.
I firstly wanted to check I had thought it through, and that it was
appropriate in the context of HTML and WCAG. Thus trying the list first.
Then I floated the idea with a friend who uses JAWs. She seemed to think
it a good idea, mainly as it gives the option to expand on a case by
case basis. I'll see if she can ask people on a screen-reader list.
NB: Windows Eyes is a little more advanced for acronym usage, but
doesn't give the option in each case either.
Personally I like the idea because it provides an equivalent to the
visual display. I think it might also be useful to do the same for
images as well, as some have titles providing extra information. You
could also apply it to links, as some sites have "opens in new window"
in the title attribute of the link. (Something I argue against as screen
reader users are likely to be unaware of it, but I would have to change
my tune if this changes.)
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 4:30AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
> Could be done in aural CSS, yeah.
>
> abbr[title] { cue-before: url("softbing.wav"); }
That would be the most appropriate way of doing it, but I think that
suggesting a method might put it further down the to-do list for the
screen-reader developers.
As far as I know, screen readers don't deal with added content very
well, possibly because IE (<=7) doesn't support added content from CSS.
(Let alone aural stylesheets!)
However, they do have lots of verbosity options already, so
piggy-backing on what's there already might get it done sooner.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Fri, Mar 24 2006 7:30AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/24/06, Alastair Campbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> > Could be done in aural CSS, yeah.
> That would be the most appropriate way of doing it, but I think that
> suggesting a method might put it further down the to-do list for the
> screen-reader developers.
Oh, definitely true. Anything having to do with aural CSS is, alas,
completely pie-in-the-sky these days. It's like wishful thinking, except you
know you won't get your wish.
--Kynn
From: Penny Roberts
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 5:20AM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> On 3/23/06, *Penny Roberts* < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >> wrote:
>
> If you are going to quote me at least get it right: what I actually said
> was that expecting a blind person to go back to the beginning to find
> the expanded version was equally as bad as making them hear it in full
> (which referred to your suggestion of not abbreviating). Neither
> situation is good.
>
>
> Why is a blind person having to go back to the beginning of a document
> to find the expansion of a term any different from a sighted person
> having to go back to the beginning of a document? Or, alternately,
> remember the definition for the space of the page?
As I've already said: it isn't any different. There were two reasons
(as I recall) why the discussion had been narrowed down to blind users
by this point: one was that you yourself had done so; the other was that
it is appears to be only screen readers that present a barrier to the
use of the the expansion. (Braille readers would present the same
problem: either the expansion every time or not at all; but I get the
impression that they are not much in use. Is that right?) I did in
fact mention the possibility of screen readers giving an aural signal
that an expansion was available (the equivalent to the dotted underline)
back last week but no one took it up at the time.
>
> It seems that many people are convinced that acronyms and abbreviations
> are an accessibility barrier in and of themselves. Can you explain for
> which populations of people with disabilities this is true, and how
> exactly providing abbrevation expansion via <abbr> helps?
I've done that in another post but maybe you hadn't reached it when you
wrote this.
Penny
From: Maren Child
Date: Wed, Mar 29 2006 5:00PM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
I would imagine the acronyms and abbreviations would present the biggest
hurdle to those with a cognitive disability. A blind person would be able to
remember the meaning from the first time it was spelled out just as well as
a sighted person. Anyone could forget and have to go back and look it up
again, if the abbr tag hasn't been used.
As editors, we deal with documents full of abbreviations and acronyms all
the time - especially in government documents. In a printed document, we
spell out an acronym/abbreviation the first time it occurs in each chapter,
followed by the acronym/abbreviation in parentheses. For the rest of the
chapter we use the acronym/abbreviation. We also have a list of all the
acronyms and abbreviations at the end of the document. When we convert the
documents to html we do the same - there is a link from every web page of
the document to a list of abbreviations and acronyms with their meanings. So
you would not have to go back and search for it in the page you were on, you
could go to the list (which could have an alpha list at the top so you could
choose the first letter and jump to that section). The problem with that
approach I suppose is that if you were using a screenreader, it could be
hard to skip to there and then go back and find your place in the document.
Maren Child
WordsWorth Writing
From: Sarah Horton
Date: Thu, Mar 30 2006 6:10AM
Subject: RE: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Mar 30 2006 12:50PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | Next message →
On 3/29/06, Maren Child < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I would imagine the acronyms and abbreviations would present the biggest
> hurdle to those with a cognitive disability.
Question: Do we know this is the case?
I ask simply because the point of MOST acronyms and abbreviations is
that you DON'T need to know what it stands for, you need to know what
it means.
E.g., knowing that WCAG stands for Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines created by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) doesn't tell
you as much as saying "WCAG is a set of guidelines for making your web
site more accessible." Knowing that radar stands for "radio detection
and ranging" doesn't help anyone (and in fact, if you saw "radio
detection and ranging" spelled out, most people wouldn't recognize it)
-- and if you had ambiguity between the normal definition of radar and
the folks at www.radar.org.uk, then likely you are dealing with poor
natural language writing to begin with. :)
--Kynn
--
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Writer, Web Developer, Photographer, Game Designer
Tucson, Arizona
http://kynn.com
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Mar 30 2006 2:40PM
Subject: Re: ABBR vs. just spelling it out.
← Previous message | No next message
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> - - the point of MOST acronyms and abbreviations is
> that you DON'T need to know what it stands for, you need to know what
> it means.
Indeed. And acronyms and abbreviations are just one part of expressions
that pose problems to many people. Special symbols, identifiers (often of
abbreviation origin, but e.g. the identifier "m" for "meter" is not to be
treated as an abbreviation), foreign words, technical terms, and common
words in uncommon meanings (often as a matter of terminology) are often
much more difficult than widely known abbreviations. Here, too, the point
is that people need to know the meaning, not the etymology (though the
etymology may sometimes help to understand the meaning).
> E.g., knowing that WCAG stands for Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines created by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) doesn't tell
> you as much as saying "WCAG is a set of guidelines for making your web
> site more accessible."
Moreover, if the text is in a language other than English and readers or
listeners know English just a little (or not at all), spelling out the
expression may not help at all. Admittedly, the expansion sometimes helps
to explain the meaning to some extent to some audiences, but that is a
judgement call and must be decided by the author.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/