- From: Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@bluemars.net>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:13:39 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Peter Neumann wrote: > For example, lets rewrite the following piece of text: > ... unique IDs in a table... > > If you mark this up with > ... unique <abbr title="Identities">IDs</abbr> in a table... > it will be displayed by browsers as > .. unique IDs in a table... > and will be read out by screen-readers as > .. unique Identities in a table... Peter, I agree that "identities" (or "identifiers") would be more clear as they are not only read by screenreaders, but also shown as a tooltip. Let's not forget that accessibility isn't just for "those blind people," but for improving access for all. Therefore people with cognitive challenges in particular, or simply non-native speakers or people who are unfamiliar with an abbreviation in general profit from an explanation. Getting rid of ABBR or ACRONYM altogether like Jukka proposes is like the HTML 5 Working Group's argument to drop alternative text for images for the reason that people are too stupid to use them properly. OK, so we need a clear definition and better outreach and education. People actually benefit from those elements and attributes. Even if they only represent a small fraction of the users, and even if only a fraction of developers and manufacturers do it right, for them it is not a matter of a fraction, but a binary decision: 100% access, or access denied. Cheers, Martin http://learningtheworld.eu
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:44 UTC