RE: SC 3.1.4 issues

I agree that accepting 1753 would impose too severe a restriction. For
example, it would mean you couldn't do something like the following:
<address>
<abbr title="doctor">Dr.</abbr> Smith<br>
1234 Medical <abbr title="drive">Dr.</abbr></br>
Some Town, USA 78901
</address>


Or what about <abbr title="saint">St.</abbr> Mary <abbr
title="street">St.</abbr>?

On the other hand, "The <acronym title="Americans with Disabilities
Act">ADA</acronym> requires that organizations like the <acronym
title="American Dental Association">ADA</acronym> and the <acronym
title="American Diabetes Association">ADA</acronym> make their
facilities accessible to employees with disabilities"

Would be pretty confusing to people who *weren't* using screen readers
(with abbreviations and acronyms turned on)...

JOhn


"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino
Reid
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 8:56 am
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: SC 3.1.4 issues


There is one issue for SC 3.1.4, Issue 1753:

 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1753

It asks whether there should be a requirement that acronyms and
abbreviations have unique meanings inside a document.

I think this is too strong a requirement, although some techniques will
not work well when there are multiple expansions for an abbreviation.

Recommendation: Make this an advisory technique, with discussion in
other techniques of when they would not be appropriate when a delivery
unit uses different expansions for the same abbreviation.

Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 15:42:05 UTC