- From: <Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:27:03 -0600
- To: "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF6D2D2385.70C06422-ON862573DE.004CDA45-862573DE.004F8EDD@semcoinc.com>
Ben, >Are you trying to have a place for both: >a. this is the expanded form >b. this is how it should be spoken Yes. I think it's important that it gets text both gets read outloud correctly when on screen readers and displays correctly (via expanded form) via braille output devices. (For your example, the QUT would likely make sense when read, but need to be spelled out completely on a braille output device, because braille presents acronyms - like QUT - and abbreviations differently.) My primary suggestion was that we should provide the option (but not require) the alt attribute to be used as an alternative to what was presented which could be read. While the title would define the term as already stated in the spec. >The example looks like the @title and @alt attributes repeat >themselves. True, but there are often articles, conjunctions, and prepositions in the expanded versions of words that are not included in the short versions. These might need to be read by a screen reader (to make it comprehendible), but not displayed to an average definition of the abbreviation. >Personally I find the dfn/abbr@title to be repetitive too (as I want >to include the full expansion in plain text, not merely within >@title), but we've already been over that ground ... [5] I have to agree here, on the repetitive side. Then is there any reason why the spec can't be defined as simply <abbr title="University of Missouri">Mizzou</abbr> where a title attribute in the <abbr> tag automatically defines the abbreviation? That way any time we encounter <abbr>Mizzou<abbr> in the future we have the definition already defined (without the need for <dfn>). Then it might not be over burdensome to use the alt tag as I'm suggesting in places where it would be read outloud correctly. I'd like to make it a point to note that even if this group doesn't take the above suggestion and drop the <dfn> tag and chooses to keep <abbr> usage as defined in the spec, it still makes sense to provide the option of using the alt attribute to describe the way text should be spoken. > We have enough trouble getting authors to fill in this information (or any metadata not obviously visible), without needed it twice. I don't really think that some authors not conforming is a reason to prevent others from providing even greater accessibility. Look forward to your responses, Wesley Upchurch "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com> 01/25/2008 09:32 PM To Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com cc "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org> Subject Re: Regarding the <abbr> tag Hi Wesley, Not sure I've understood your suggestion correctly, or the need behind it. The example looks like the @title and @alt attributes repeat themselves. We have enough trouble getting authors to fill in this information (or any metadata not obviously visible), without needed it twice. Are you trying to have a place for both: a. this is the expanded form b. this is how it should be spoken I'm not sure it's needed. If it is needed, would it be limited to abbreviations? I've been to couple of screen reader demos and, as an example, there was one where they looked at some pages on a website for QUT. This was pronounced "kwut" by the screen reader. Now, on first encountering this, most people are not going to know what it means. This issue is relevant to everyone... regardless of pronunciation, will you know what "QUT" is? The use of "kwut" was quite suitable for this screen reader user. Through personal experience, they knew what it stood for (and were able to explain it to the audience at the demo). Being a short (one syllable) word, it is very efficiently spoken, very efficiently listened to, very efficiently consumed. This is important for a quality screen reading experience. Having the term spelled out constantly (Q-U-T) just slows everything down a bit more. Having it fully expanded and read in full, that is much slower. That may be wanted when the term is unfamiliar, but beyond that ... Here's how I imagine it works. Sceen reader: "Based in Brisbane, kwut is a top Australian university with global connections ..." User thinks: hang on, what's "kwut"? User commands screen reader to go back to that term so they can investigate it... might get it spelled out (Q-U-T) or the @title read (if there is one provided in the HTML). I truly don't see how this is different to what we would do if we encountered "QUT" and didn't understand what it meant... we'd dig a bit to find a meaning and then get on with our lives. Maybe it doesn't even matter what it stands for... from the sentence we know it is a top Australian university with global connections, right? :) Truly, I think we authors bother ourselves too much with these questions. The best advice is clearly stated in WCAG: "Avoid slang, jargon, and specialized meanings of familiar words, unless defined within your document." [1][2] The page I took the QUT sentence from [3] actually uses the title element to define themselves, and from thereon refer to themselves almost exclusively as "kwut". No abbr, @title or @alt required. There are other examples where the abbreviations (or other jargon) will not be so obvious, where things are more out of context. For example, if I were blogging about this and wanted to define what "QUT" was. Typically I'd just do this with text: "Queensland University of Technology (QUT)" HTML5 has specified some neat behaviour for the dfn element [4] that allows me to provide better hooks, to support those situations where people want to know what QUT is, like so: "Queensland University of Technology (<dfn><abbr title="Queensland University of Technology">QUT</abbr></dfn>)" I can then use <abbr>QUT</abbr> throughout my document, and HTML5 UAs should refer back to that definition ... as required. Personally I find the dfn/abbr@title to be repetitive too (as I want to include the full expansion in plain text, not merely within @title), but we've already been over that ground ... [5] Possibly this post has travelled away from your original questions. I hope not, but do clarify if so. I think the optional attribute to specify types of abbreviations could be pursued as a class (ala microformats), or with RDFa. With this post I hoped to explain why I do not see any need to make such a distinction; even the need to "define jargon" is best practice advice (from WCAG) and not needed in the HTML spec so long as the mechanisms (dfn, abbr) are in place. cheers Ben [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#writing-style [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-GATEWAY-20030723.html#TECH-writing-style [3] http://www.qut.edu.au/ [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/#the-dfn [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/1287.html On Jan 25, 2008 12:17 AM, <Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com> wrote: > > After responding to Susan in the Public HTML Comments, I had more time to > think about the issue she brought up. I'm offering the following suggestion > and thoughts to help solve the problem. > > Wouldn't it make more sense if the <abbr> tag used the alt attribute in > addition to the title attribute? I'm suggesting this because I think that > the use of the title attribute should provide a tooltip to the user to > define the acronym, but the alt tag should provide an alternative to the > abbreviation or acronym (sometimes articles like a and then would be > necessary to make the sentence make sense to viewers requiring accessible > browsers). I thought this would provide better compatibility with screen > readers and braille browsers which may need to display the > acronym/abbreviation in full for reasons detailed below. > > Otherwise, I might make sense to add a type attribute to the <abbr> tag as > Susan suggested. Even better might be to create a <acron> tag (or something > similar) to use for acronyms and keep the <abbr> tag for abbreviations. Of > course both of the suggestions in this paragraph are not really necessary if > the <abbr> tag provides both a title and an alt tag. > > That way my first example from below would read as follows: > > <abbr title="National Aeronautics and Space Administration" alt="The > National Aeronautics and Space Administration">NASA</abbr> will be launching > a rocket in July. > > Thanks for your thoughts and considerations in advance. > > Wesley Upchurch > > THE FOLLOWING COMES FROM > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Jan/subject.html > > From: <Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com> > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:18:36 -0600 > To: public-html-comments@w3.org > Message-ID: > <OFF3D8CA23.C81D7B28-ON862573D9.00622043-862573D9.0064C122@semcoinc.com> > According to the latest working draft: "The abbr element represents an > abbreviation or acronym. The title attribute should be used to provide an > expansion of the abbreviation. If present, the attribute must only contain > an expansion of the abbreviation." > > It is my opinion (as opposed to that of the Working Group as a whole), > that the title attribute serves the purpose of accessibility regardless of > whether the text in the <abbr> tag is an abbreviation or an acronym, by > defining the full meaning of it (which could be displayed on braille > output devices, instead of the standard text, similar to how ALT tags work > with images). > > ----- > To demonstrate this point I'm giving you an example of both an > abbreviation and an acronym: > > <abbr title="The National Aeronautics and Space Administration > ">NASA</abbr> will be launching a rocket in July. > and > We will meet on <abbr title="August">Aug</abbr> 1, 2008. > > Notice that both of these would make sense to someone utilizing a screen > reader or braille browser. > ------ > > In addition to the title tag making it unnecessary for to differentiate > between abbreviations or acronyms, it is my also personal opinion that > such a attribute wasn't included in HTML 5 because HTML is designed to > describe the semantics of a document regardless of the language the > document is written in. The fact that contracted English braille has > different rules for translating abbreviations and acronyms is specific to > braille in the English language is probably another reason for not > including such an attribute. > > Hope this helps. > > Wesley Upchurch > > > From: Susan Jolly <easjolly@ix.netcom.com> > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:45:49 -0700 > To: <public-html-comments@w3.org> > Message-ID: <E1JHPys-0002Ei-8E@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > Contracted English braille has different rules for translating the items it > calls abbreviations and the items it calls acronyms. I don't want to start > yet another discussion of the differences between abbreviations, acronyms, > initialisms and so forth. However, at the very least the <abbr> element > should have an optional attribute for identifying the type of abbreviation. > Having to parse the value of the title attribute to make this determination > would be undesirable at best and might not always produce the desired > result. > > Sincerely, > Susan Jolly >
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 14:44:25 UTC