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

RE: ABBR vs. ACRONYM

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:42:24 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000223120740.00d18420@pop3.concentric.net>
To: <david@davidsaccess.com>
Cc: WAI Interest Group Emailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
aloha, david!

with all due respect, i think it a worthy and worthwhile exchange, as 
evinced not only by the length of the threads, but by the spirited debate...

yes, dave, currently ABBR and ACRONYM are only accorded a P3 in the Web 
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), but one of my particular bones of 
contention is that they have been accorded far too low a priority...

this thread started with a specific question about specific markup and with 
a response providing a validated example of how one might implement 
it...  yes, it is a P3, but don't P3 checkpoints deserve the same attention 
-- if an author is attempting to implement them -- that other, higher 
priority, checkpoints merit?

just because this issue bleeds over into questions of internationalization 
and general usability, does not mean that it ceases to become an 
accessibility issue...  what truly makes a mockery out of our mission, to 
borrow your term, is unwillingness to admit, accept, and exploit the 
inter-related nature of accessibility, internationalization, and 
usability...  our goal is ensuring the widest possible audience with access 
to content, and if an individual asks for clarification of a specific 
checkpoint that request should be honored...  what would truly undermine 
our efforts would be the banishing of  discussion of the implications of a 
P3 checkpoint that a number of posters to this list firmly believe _is_ an 
accessibility issue..

gregory.

At 09:28 AM 2/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Gregory, Kynn, Charles, et al....
>
>I have tried to sit back and be patient,  but this thread has gone far
>enough. You are discussing a Priority *3* checkpoint, and I cannot (read:
>will not) believe that there are not more critical issues that we need to
>come to consensus on.
>
>This thread makes me feels as if I am in the faculty club of (***insert
>favorite elite university****) sipping my favorite Port discussing how many
>angels can dance on the head of a pin.
>
>The WCAG are about providing equal access to information. If an acronym is
>not understandable in its context, it is equally as inaccessible to
>everybody. Why should we be any different?
>
>If I was new to Web Access, and I subscribed to this list to get practical
>tips on web accessibility, this thread would turn me off completely.
>Admittedly, it does provide some intellectual fodder for us web access
>junkies, but it also makes a mockery out of our mission.
>
>Thanks,
>
>dc
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>David M. Clark
>Director of Accessibility
>halftheplanet.com
>Email: dclark@halftheplanet.com  URL: http://www.halftheplanet.com
>Boston Office: 617/859-3069 (phone/fax)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSURDITY, n.  A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with
one's own opinion.       -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita      <unagi69@concentric.net>
Camera Obscura           <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
VICUG NYC                <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
Read 'Em & Speak         <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 12:33:11 GMT

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