- From: <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:57:15 -0400
- To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
At the Team B meeting on September 14, 2005, we discussed updating GL 3.1 L3 SC2 to include abbreviations and removing GL 3.1 L3 SC3 that is specific to acronyms and abbreviations. Below is the proposal for the updated success criterion, the rationale and the open issues. I'd like to see where we all stand on this SC change before tackling the changes to the guide doc and techniques. <proposal for updated GL 3.1 L3 SC2 (implies removing L3 SC3)> A mechanism is available for identifying specific definitions of words used in a restricted way, including idioms, jargon and abbreviations. </proposal> <rationale> Acronyms and abbreviations do not need to be called out separately from other definitions since they are examples of words used in a restricted way. The original L3 SC 3 seems like a very HTML specific success criterion since HTML has a specific mechanism for marking up abbreviations and acronyms. This seems to be a hold over from WCAG 1.0 and is no longer needed. The term acronym has been removed since an acronym is an abbreviation. The term unusual has been removed since it is not testable and is covered by "restricted way" (although there is disagreement on this, see the open issues section). </rationale> <open issues> Concern has been raised about removing the term "unusual" from the SC [1]. John and I discussed this and still don't feel that "unusual" is testable - what are the other opinions about removing this phrase? John and I believe that restricted covers the range that we need since restricted can be defined in the following manner (my paraphrase of email conversations): What is meant by using a word "in a restricted way"-- the author has to "restrict"/limit meaning to a particular definition rather than leaving it open. For example, in the US the acronym "ADA" can stand for at least three different things: the Americans with Disabilities Act, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Dental Association. And in lower case it's the name of a programming language, but it's *not* an acronym-- the language is named for Lady Ada Lovelace, a 19th-century English woman who did some pioneering work in computation! The word is used in a way that differs from the primary dictionary definition The word is used in the context of a specific subject matter. Since it does not specify, does this SC imply that all occurrences of the definition should be programmatically determined? For abbreviations we currently specify the frequency in the technique by stating that only the first occurrence needs to be marked (there is also disagreement here). </open issues> <proposed general techniques> Using inline expansion Using a Glossary page Searching an online dictionary Using a Dictionary Cascade </proposed general techniques> <proposed HTML techniques> Link to a glossary Use <abbr> element Use <acronym> element (propose marking this as deprecated in favor of just <abbr>) Supplemental meaning clues Using a definition list One of the issues of combining the two success criteria is that the HTML techniques are dependent upon the type of content. For example, the HTML techniques for using the <abbr> or <acronym> element are specific to those types of words and will not work for jargon. Likewise, definition lists are not the best choice for abbreviation expansion. John and I think this is acceptable since the author should know what type of content is being generated and use the appropriate technique. </proposed HTML techniques> thoughts? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2005Sep/0066.html Becky Gibson Web Accessibility Architect IBM Emerging Internet Technologies 5 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101 Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 18:03:08 UTC