W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Question about HTML abbr and acronym tags

From: Barry Rader <brader@boldinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:07:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4783ADC2.7010701@boldinternet.com>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
CC: www-html@w3.org

For someone who cannot see how would they distinguish when your abbr and 
acronym is not just a word.

Say for example MIA we have an MIA named Mia and we are discussing her. 
you define the first occurrence as suggested MIA (Missing in Action) all 
after that you are no longer required to define this. So when talking 
about Mia or MIA what is the distinguishing factor for the screen reader.

I use <abbr> and <acronym> tags especially for longer pages I like being 
able to mouse-over or tab-over and see what an acronym means while I am 
reading. These are very helpful.

Barry Rader

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Martin Kliehm wrote:
> 
>> Getting rid of ABBR or ACRONYM altogether like Jukka proposes is like
>> the HTML 5 Working Group's argument to drop alternative text for
>> images for the reason that people are too stupid to use them
>> properly.
> 
> No it isn't. The alt attribute, though related to poor design of HTML 
> (the <img> element was just a kludge from the beginning, and restricting 
> the alternative content to plain text was a bad choice), is fairly 
> well-defined and reasonably consistently supported, as well as widely 
> used, with provable benefits. The <abbr> and <acronym> tags lack _all_ 
> of this. To begin with, what _is_ an acronym and what is an 
> abbreviation? The specifications are self-contradictory, not just 
> obscure.
> 
>> OK, so we need a clear definition and better outreach and education.
> 
> No, there is no proven need for those tags in the first place.
> 
>> People actually benefit from those elements and attributes.
> 
> That's what some people keep saying, with little if any evidence, as 
> regards to <abbr> and <acronym>.
> 
> If you write about WAI and use <abbr title="Web Accessibility 
> Initiative">WAI</abbr>, who will benefit from it? Only a small fraction 
> will see or hear the explanation, and what makes you think it's good for 
> them? Compare this with writing "WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative)". 
> Much simpler. _Much_ more accessible. No special support needed.
> 
>> Even if
>> they only represent a small fraction of the users, and even if only a
>> fraction of developers and manufacturers do it right, for them it is
>> not a matter of a fraction, but a binary decision: 100% access, or
>> access denied.
> 
> Not at all. As an author, you have the option of explaining your 
> acronyms and abbreviations and special symbols. Throwing in some <abbr> 
> and <acronym> tags does not help here; instead, it keeps you busy doing 
> some pointless pseudo-work.
> 
> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 17:07:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:13 GMT