Re: Question on abbreviations (fwd)

At 03:11 PM 12/29/00 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>So none of these difficulties should prevent us from requiring that all 
>instances of an abbreviation or acronym be tagged.

Let's just call him "bottom line Leonard".

Implementation "difficulties" will be addressed in the Techniques?

The "political" question (is this really about accessibility for PWDs?) 
centers on a presumption of possible "backlash" if we address things that 
might be more properly considered as "usability", I.e., our "credibility" 
might suffer.

I've heard many of the "geezer jokes" about short term memory loss, etc. 
but until I experienced it, I thought it was just something everybody has 
from time to time - NOT! There is an absolute "condition" change that's 
encroaching/disturbing/personal/real/+ and amounts to a disability IMO - 
abbreviations/acronyms present severe access problems now that weren't 
there 30-40 years ago.

I know that implementing a means whereby I could choose an item to expand 
and, presto!, it would be made clear, is well within the realm of 
doability. There's much Devil in the consequent details, but the principle 
is clear - access to the meanings of abbreviations is central to 
accessibility for those of us who suffer/experience what seem to be 
inevitabilities associated with increasingly earlier birthdates.

The prioritization can be deferred but when we do begin thinking about 
"impossible" vs. "difficult" I hope that those who opt for lowering 
priorities would examine just how hard some of the "possible" "solutions" 
are - as in "you could learn to read Sanskrit!".

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 15:38:20 UTC