Plural abbreviations and acronyms
Home / Site Building & Testing / Plural abbreviations and acronyms
| JackP wrote: |
| Two examples used in the discussion are "BBC" and "HTML" - who actually thinks in terms of the "British Broadcasting Corporation" or "Hypertext Markup Language"? The abbreviations have become the thing that carries the meaning. |
Again, things like RADAR, HTML etc. have indeed become words in their own right. As such one could contemplate NOT to place them in an <abbr> or <acronym> at all. In addition, does expansion of these terms really explain what they are? Therefor I think a <dfn> tag is much more appropriate in those cases.
It was never my intention to spark a discussion about to expand or to not expand. It was my intention to indicate that sometimes it is better to expand and sometimes it is better to not use <abbr> at all. I am merely trying to get the point across that the <abbr> tag is not sacred.
The original question was if to include the plural-s inside the tag or not. There is no definitive answer. I think that abbreviations and there expansion/title-attribute are often overused, just because webdesigners think in terms of standards first.
Obviously it all depends heavilly on the context. If you ask my opinion about the use of BBC on the web site of the BBC I would say they should at least expand it once on every page where it is used heavilly and use the title attribute once on every page as well.
Share: 
You could see the better audio output as a result of the better semantics. As an author, the semantics are the important thing because they are device-independent. As a user, the most important thing is getting a sane readout thanks to your device making use of the semantics the author provided._________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
I just came across this article. I don't agree with it 100% but it does provide another take on the whole abbr-issue.
Share:
9.4 is inaccurate: IE6 displays a dashed bottom border by default for <acronym>, I think back to version 4. IE7 does this for both <acronym> and <abbr>, IIRC.
10 is punctuated unconventionally: short term goes in the parentheses. Also, duplicated expansions are an accessibility obstacle.
Graphical web browsers could have an option to substitute the content of <abbr title> and <acronym title> with the value of their title. Just like JAWS, Window-Eyes and so on. But if a user comes across a short term they don't recognise, they could look it up in the same was as coming across a word they don't recognise.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Cerbera wrote:
| Quote: |
| Graphical web browsers could have an option to substitute the content of <abbr title> and <acronym title> with the value of their title. |
The ICITA Firefox Accessibility Toolbar will replace marked up abbreviations with the explained form followed by the abbreviation in brackets.[/quote]
Share:
Thanks for that, Ben. 
I thought of another interesting case today: talking about something which belongs to several Content Management Systems. For example:
| Quote: |
| Typically, even the best CMS's accessibility is low for their interfaces. |
| Code: |
| <acronym title="Content Management System">CMS</acronym>'s |
| Quote: |
| Content Management System's |
| Code: |
| <acronym title="Content Management Systems'">CMS's</acronym> |
CMSs' looks weird, to me. But that might actually be a more correct shortened term for this?
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Wouldn't it be better to simply rewrite the text so it would say something like:
Typically, when it comes to any CMS, these systems accessibility are low for their interfaces.
or something along those lines (my english is not that good). But hopefully you get the point. Try to make the abbreviation singular and simplyfy the plural.
Share:
Rewriting the sentence to be more simple would be OK a lot of the time. But that can be difficult if it was provided by somebody else or is expected to be done quickly.
Your specific suggested text doesn't mean the same thing. It has redundant text ("System" in CMS and "systems" in the text, for example). It's also a more complicated sentence structure which is longer. But I'm sure it makes more sense than me trying to write it in your native language!
I tried thinking of simpler ways to write it. But the example I gave is already the simplest I can think of without changing the meaning.
Any ideas on whether it should be CMSs' or CMS's? I'm starting to think CMSs' might not be so weird after all...
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| Any ideas on whether it should be CMSs' or CMS's? I'm starting to think CMSs' might not be so weird after all... |
Yup. Firstly, it's a plural, so it becomes CMSs. Then it's a possessive, so you make it CMSs'. At least that's my take on it.
Obviously, that's assuming you treat it like a single word and use the standard singular acronym, because you could just as easily expand the acronym to mean [b]content management systems[b] and then stick the apostrophe on the end of the acronym.
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Do you mean:
| Code: |
| <acronym title="Content Management Systems">CMS</acronym>' |
Or:
| Code: |
| <acronym title="Content Management Systems'">CMS'</acronym> |
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Well, you could do either. All I was saying there was that the apostrophe goes at the end, and that you can re-define the acronym term to mean what you like if you're expanding it.I.e. you can have CMS to mean singular or plural. That's not to say I would...
In practise, I'd use neither of your examples. As what you're effectively saying is:
"content management systems-ses accessibility [functions] are poor in comparison to..."
therefore in good english terms, the best way to mark it up would presumably be
| Code: |
| <acronym title="content management system">CMS</acronym>s' |
| Code: |
| <acronym title="content management systems">CMSs</acronym>' |
I personally would stick to CMS as being a singular, and add the 's' at the end to indicate the plural because I think that's approaching convention for plural acronyms (MPs, TVs etc), and it means the main 'body' of the acronym is being used consistently.
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Oops, I misread your previous message! Looks like we both agree CMSs clearer as a plural than CMS with a plural expansion.
What I'm wondering (and what my previous message would have said if I had remembered how to read) is why do this:
| Code: |
| <acronym title="content management systems">CMSs</acronym>' |
| Code: |
| <acronym title="Content Management Systems'">CMSs'</acronym> |
- When hovering the mouse over your code sample, a user would see content management systems instead of Content Management Systems'.
- The apostrophe will not be styled as part of the <acronym> in your sample (e.g. a dotted underline would stop short of it).
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| this thread is the ultimate in pedantry |
But pedantry can be fun! Although, a bit like being a semantic, accessible web nerd, it's probably unlikely to win friends and make you attractive to potential partners. Shame, really.
I personally would tend to exclude the apostrophe from the acronym, simply because in my head - and I don't claim to be an expert in the proper use of english - but to me it doesn't feel as though the possessive apostrophe is part of the word.
For example: John's car
John and car are the two key elements; 's is simply used to indicate that the second element is 'owned' by the first; "John's" on its own wouldn't stand without the second word in the same way "John" would; that's why to me it would feel better to have the apostrophe outside.
In practice, as long as someone was marking up the expansion relatively sensibly, I don't think I'd take exception to them doing it any of these ways!
Also, I like idea of the dotted underline stopping before the ' or 's.
In the example above, if I have
| Code: |
| <acronym title="Director General">DG</acronym>'s car |
then it's only the "director general" bit I am providing extra explanation for: I'm assuming the user will already know that the 's indicates possession.
But like I say, I'd not get too worked up about it: the important bit in a website is communicating the message clearly, and where the apostrophe is will not be appearing on any list of "important dos and don'ts".
Although it wouldn't surprise me to see it as "Important do's and don'ts"
sigh
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
What about the incorrect text when the expansion is displayed as a tooltip in your examples? They are missing the final ' or 's.
For it to work in HTML, it seems the contents of <acronym> must be the entire shortened term and its title value must be the entire expansion? How you feel about it doesn't change what the user sees, even if you're right.
| JackP wrote: |
| to me it doesn't feel as though the possessive apostrophe is part of the word. |
| Code: |
| <abbr title="that is">that's</abbr> |
| JackP wrote: |
| For example: John's car
John and car are the two key elements; 's is simply used to indicate that the second element is 'owned' by the first; "John's" on its own wouldn't stand without the second word in the same way "John" would; that's why to me it would feel better to have the apostrophe outside. |
If you think the possessive form is not really a word in its own right, "his" and "hers" would not be words. They are only the possessive form of "he" and "she" (respectively). But "his" and "hers" are words, I think you'd agree? So my understanding is that System and System's and Systems' are each words in their own right, too.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
| Cerbera wrote: |
| What about the incorrect text when the expansion is displayed as a tooltip in your examples? They are missing the final ' or 's. |
| Quote: |
| For it to work in HTML, it seems the contents of <acronym> must be the entire shortened term |
| Cerbera wrote: |
| For example, that's is a contraction which you might choose to expand. You would need to include both the stem word, (that) and the bolted-on ending ('s) for it to work |
Jack's isn't a contraction. It is an indication of ownership.
| Cerbera wrote: |
| If you think the possessive form is not really a word in its own right |
I would certainly argue that system systems and system's aren't different words; to me they are variable forms of the same word, for the same reason that you don't find "goats" listed as an entirely separate entry from "goat" in a dictionary. It's not a different word; it's a different variation of the same word...
Please remember that I did say that I wouldn't object to how anyone was marking it up as long as they were doing it sensibly... now, unless you can point to some authoritative english text which says I can't do it my way, we're just arguing opinions round in circles and I think it's maybe time to draw this one to a close?
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum