Re: Contractions: good or not from the accessibility perspective?

Hi Niklas,

> Is it OK to use contractions in documentation and still write inclusively
with accessibility in mind?

I don't think there is a black or white answer there; like so much about
accessibility, the actual answer is closer to "it depends".

Mostly, I think it depends on the content, context, and the target
audience(s). In formal 'documentation' (user guides? instructional
materials?) I'd likely avoid contractions as being too 'informal'. But in
marketing materials (think ad copy) not only might it be more appropriate,
it may actually be critical in meeting other business requirements (I
recall a Coca Cola marketing campaign that claimed "It's the Real Thing").

It may also depend on the topic being written about - and how formal or
informal that topic might be, so mostly it would have to be a judgement
call. Internal policies and style guides may provide a protocol for
individual entities, but a blanket statement would never cover all
use-cases.

I think too that it's important to acknowledge the *constraints *that
Microsoft article highlights, specifically:

   -

   Don't mix contractions and their spelled-out equivalents in UI text. For
   example, don’t use *can’t* and *cannot* in the same UI.
   -

   Never form a contraction from a noun and a verb, such as *Microsoft’s
   developing a lot of new cloud services.*
   -

   Avoid ambiguous or awkward contractions, such as *there’d, it’ll,* and
   *they’d.*

Remembering those 3 "Don'ts" (ha! another contraction) will likely address
the majority of disability concerns you mentioned (for many, but never for
all). In the end, it will be a judgement call, and I will suggest that a
uniform application of any internal decision will be equally important in
meeting the Plain Language/Readability goals you allude to. Be consistent!

HTH

JF

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:06 AM Niklas Pivic <niklas.pivic@snowsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
>
>
> I am new to the WAI list, so I apologise in advance if I happen to do
> something wrong.
>
>
>
> I have searched the web for an answer but can’t find one, so here goes:
>
>
>
> Is it OK to use contractions in documentation and still write inclusively
> with accessibility in mind?
>
>
>
> Microsoft’s Writing Style Guide says that using contractions is good
> <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/style-guide/word-choice/use-contractions>,
> as it contributes to creating ‘a friendly, informal tone.’
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I’ve seen people note that contractions are bad from
> the accessibility standpoint, mainly where people with certain visual
> impairments are concerned along with people who have certain disabilities,
> for example dyslexia.
>
>
>
> I would appreciate your thoughts on this dearly.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Niklas Pivic
>
> Technical Writer
>
> +46 708575069
>
> niklas.pivic@snowsoftware.com
>
> [image: A picture containing drawing Description automatically generated]
> *Snow Software *| Box 1033 | 171 21 Solna | Sweden
> www.snowsoftware.com
>
> [image: signature_1778204258]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/snow-software-ab/>  [image:
> signature_1637168] <https://twitter.com/SnowSoftware>
>
>
>


-- 
*John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"