W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: About ABBR

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:25:45 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000219211847.0197b220@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: David Norris <dave@webaugur.com>
Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, Wayne Crotts <wcrotts@ARCHES.UGA.EDU>, WAI Interest Group Emailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 08:39 PM 2/19/2000 , David Norris wrote:
> >       The Web Accessibility Initiative
> >       (<ACRONYM TITLE="Web Accessibility Initiative">WAI</ACRONYM>)
> >...
> >       The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is part of the World
> >       Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

>One can easily prove that the first is more accessible.  The first
>example sets a precedence for the entire document.

No, it doesn't -- only if you have some sort of reference BACK to
the acronym can you be certain that it is a reference.

You cannot assume that every occurence of WAI on the same page 
should be expanded to Web Accessibility Initiative, unless you
have something like the following:

      There are at least two things that the letters "W" "A" "I"
      can refer to when speaking of web design.  One is the
      W3C's <ACRONYM ID="waiw3c" TITLE="Web Accessibility
      Initiative">WAI</ACRONYM> and the other is Netscape's
      <ACRONYM ID="wainscp">Web Application Interface</ACRONYM>.

You could then use something similar to LABEL's FOR attribute to
reference those IDs later in the text.

(Note:  This is not current part of the HTML spec.)

>It even eludes that
>parantheses are used to indicate manually expanded acronyms in this
>author's culture.  The first points out blatantly that we are dealing
>with an acronym here.

Points it out to whom?

>No assumptions must be made as it's clear and
>concise.  Who does it say this to?  Anyone intelligent enough to
>question it.  They cannot be considered equally accessible without
>blatant disregard to wide-spread comprehension.

Which browsers will treat these two differently, and who exactly will
gain additional access to the information?

We may be dealing with different terms here -- my definition of
accessibility (or "more accessible" in this case) relies upon the
concept that the number of people who have access to the information
is increased.  What people, theoretical or otherwise, would be
able to access the first version but not the second?

-- 
Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2000 00:43:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:48 GMT