Should <acronym> be discouraged?
There is quite a bit of debate over the use of <acronym>.
http://www.saila.com/usage/acronym/
http://www.smackthemouse.com/20040108
We are working towards the latest W3C Recommendation which is XHTML 1.1. But even if the spec permits the use of the <acronym> element, WYSIWYG tools can either encourage or discourage its use. By discourage, I mean the tool still supports the tag but makes it difficult to use or requires a configuration setting to be enabled before it can be used. For example, in XStandard, the use of <b> and <i> is discouraged even if these tags are part of the spec.
So, should the use of <acronym> be discouraged? Some factors we are considering that influences this decision are:
1. Is it confusing to the average user when they are presented with a choice between Abbreviation and Acronym. See screenshot below.
2. Can the use of another tag such as <abbr> provide equivalent functionality?
3. How much weight should be put into the fact that IE 6 does not support <abbr>?
4. Even though we are working towards XHTML 1.1, in 2.0 the <acronym> element is gone. Should we use XHTML 2.0 as a compass?
Share: 
| Vlad Alexander wrote: |
| So, should the use of <acronym> be discouraged? Some factors we are considering that influences this decision are:
1. Is it confusing to the average user when they are presented with a choice between Abbreviation and Acronym. See screenshot below. 2. Can the use of another tag such as <abbr> provide equivalent functionality? 3. How much weight should be put into the fact that IE 6 does not support <abbr>? 4. Even though we are working towards XHTML 1.1, in 2.0 the <acronym> element is gone. Should we use XHTML 2.0 as a compass? |
IMHO
1 Yes
2 I think so for instance
<abbr title="Disability Discrimination Act">DDA</abbr>
the only problem here is every time you meet it you will hear that unless you code something like
<abbr title="dee dee ay">
Mind you, with some you may be able to use <abbr> in a different way such as
<abbr title="Disability Discrimination Act from now on referred to as dee dee ay">DDA</abbr>
3 Until Uncle Bill makes changes I would say a lot
4 Yes
Mike Abbott
Accessible to everyone
Last edited by Mikea on 08 Mar 2004 05:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Share:
To hell with M$ Explorer and its failure to render the tool tip for the <abbr title=""> but I cannot say you should discourage the use of <acronym> but if you can promote the use of abbreviation that would be good. If in doubt, assume it is an abbreviation.};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
Given the most people don't know the difference, fewer yet use them and that XHTML 2.0 is dropping acronym (didn't know that but now I do), I think that <acronym> could be dropped. With too many options, people might not be bothered to use either.Jules
Share:
| Jules wrote: |
| Given the most people don't know the difference, fewer yet use them and that XHTML 2.0 is dropping acronym (didn't know that but now I do), I think that <acronym> could be dropped. With too many options, people might not be bothered to use either. |
If we have to conform to XHTML 1.1, acronym is still a valid element in the DTD. XHTML 2.0 is not yet a W3C Reccomandation so we cannot reference to it
Share:
| Vlad Alexander wrote: |
| 3. How much weight should be put into the fact that IE 6 does not support <abbr>? |
As an aside -- I'm not sure if any of you have seen this yet, but there is quite a bit of effort going into bringing IE up to speed in this regard, and in other areas.
Termed IE7, although not being developed by Microsoft, Dean Edwards has been working on a "Compliance Patch" to IE, that utilizes namespaces to get IE up to speed:
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/
No doubt this will be making the rounds on the blogs soon... He really is doing some amazing stuff. Genius actually, if you ask me...
feather.
Share:
| feather wrote: |
|
Termed IE7, although not being developed by Microsoft, Dean Edwards has been working on a "Compliance Patch" to IE, that utilizes namespaces to get IE up to speed: http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/ No doubt this will be making the rounds on the blogs soon... He really is doing some amazing stuff. Genius actually, if you ask me...
feather. |
yes it's genius, but relies on javascript...so seeing it as a good thing in terms of accessibility is, in my opinion, slightly ironic (although also talking about standards and IE in the same sentence is ironic in its own right, but with opposite direction, so the ironies cancel each other out)...
and yes...dean has GOT to change that misleading name, dammit. yes, it's cute in an in-joke kind of way, but...
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
| redux wrote: |
| yes it's genius, but relies on javascript...so seeing it as a good thing in terms of accessibility is, in my opinion, slightly ironic |
Right -- sorry about that -- I was referring to the <abbr> fix using namespaces which doesn't rely on any javascript at all...
If the rest of the patch relies on some javascript, then the JS enabled user has an enhanced browing experience. It is a shame -- they could get a better browsing experience by using Firefox for example
.
I haven't tested it, but with JS off, I'd suspect that it doesn't "break" anything, nor does it hinder mission-critical functionality. So, while possibly ironic, generally speaking I can't see that it would be *bad* per se. Again -- I haven't tested it, so I'll withdraw from further speculation...
And I do agree with you -- the name has to go...
Share:
| Vlad Alexander wrote: |
|
1. Is it confusing to the average user when they are presented with a choice between Abbreviation and Acronym. See screenshot below. 2. Can the use of another tag such as <abbr> provide equivalent functionality? 3. How much weight should be put into the fact that IE 6 does not support <abbr>? 4. Even though we are working towards XHTML 1.1, in 2.0 the <acronym> element is gone. Should we use XHTML 2.0 as a compass? |
1. Probably, especially for native-English speakers for whom 'acronym' is a virtual synonym for 'abbreviation.'
<idea type="dumb">
Maybe you can add an example after the element name:
- Abbr (CSS)
- Acronym (GIF)
2. Yes, since screen readers don't seem to bother with either element anyway.
3. Do you want to support web standards or a buggy, non-compliant browser?
4. I wouldn't. XHTML 2.0 is still a long way from becoming a recommendation. It may change many times yet. The <img> element vanished for a while, but made a comeback. You never know.
Tommy has left the building
Share:
| feather wrote: |
|
Right -- sorry about that |
hey, not having a go at you or anything...(re-reading my reply, it might have given that impression, so my apols)
| Quote: |
| -- I was referring to the <abbr> fix using namespaces which doesn't rely on any javascript at all...
If the rest of the patch relies on some javascript, then the JS enabled user has an enhanced browing experience. |
haven't delved into it, but it does look like the whole patch is based on .htc, which in turn is javascript (if i understand the issue correctly)
| Quote: |
| I haven't tested it, but with JS off, I'd suspect that it doesn't "break" anything, nor does it hinder mission-critical functionality |
it shouldn't and you're quite right that if it doesn't make things worse or break them, it's not a bad thing. as always, it's a case of not relying on it working that is the key, and providing alternatives.
| Quote: |
| I haven't tested it, so I'll withdraw from further speculation... |
same here...i may over the weekend
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
| TOOLman wrote: |
|
3. Do you want to support web standards or a buggy, non-compliant browser? |
depends on how far you want to take guideline 10 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-interim-accessibility
| Quote: |
| Use interim accessibility solutions so that assistive technologies and older browsers will operate correctly. |
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
I would'nt take XHTML 2 as a reference. XHTML is just begining to gain momentum and as it was said before, it can still change a lot.
Share:
I would also not worry about XHTML 2.0, I am still seeing prefessional web designs being written in HTML 4 which was replaced in Nov. 2000 (as I recal) by XHTML.
As far as people not knowing the difference - not my problem. It is after all taught in the schools still, so I'll be damned if I am gonna start programing for peoples intelligence levels debating if they may or may not have bothered to learn english correctly. As far as foreigners are concerned - the language designation is there... and well that is a different matter, unfortunatly we cannot program for everyone yet - I know no chinese.
Simply put a accronym and a abbreviation are in fact two totally different creatures and should be handled that way till the english language decides differently. I mean I do not write in kidspeak either.... just because the majority of surfers may speak it "I cri 4 u m8".
--
[size=9]Kyle J. Lamson
Analyst/Programmer III, State of Alaska
Share:
| lsw wrote: |
|
Simply put a accronym and a abbreviation are in fact two totally different creatures |
well, an acronym is a specific case of an abbreviation. all acronyms are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are acronyms...
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share:
| redux wrote: | ||
well, an acronym is a specific case of an abbreviation. all acronyms are abbreviations, but not all abbreviations are acronyms... |
An acronym uses the initial letters of significant words in a phrase.
An abbreviation is leaving ending letters off a single word.
Share: