Latest Accessibility News on Accessify

200192249

More about acronyms and abbreviations

The more I look at this, the more layers it reveals. No wonder people often mark up their web pages using the incorrect tags for abbreviations (if they try at all). It’s very confusing - I admit that until very recently I was incorrectly marking up almost everything as an <acronym> when I should have used <abbr>. Hopefully by my going through this pain and making this tool make the decisions for you, everyone will be happy!

“An acronym (pronounced AK-ruh-nihm, from Greek acro- in the sense of extreme or tip and onyma or name) is an abbreviation of several words in such a way that the abbreviation itself forms a word. According to Webster’s, the word doesn’t have to already exist; it can be a new word. Webster’s cites "snafu" and "radar", two terms of World War Two vintage, as examples. Implicit is the idea that the new word has to be pronounceable and ideally easy to remember.”

Source: Whatis.com

Looking at the W3C spec, it gives examples of <abbr> usage, but not of <acronym>:

<abbr title=”World Wide Web”>WWW</abbr>

<abbr lang=”fr”
title=”Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer”>SNCF</abbr>

<abbr lang=”es” title=”Doña”>Doña</abbr>

<abbr title=”Abbreviation”>abbr.</abbr>

Source: HTML4.01 Recommendation

So, WWW is an abbreviation then? Not an acronym? Apparantly it’s something called an initialism - that is, it’s created from the initial letters but is not a pronouncable word:

“An initialism is an abbreviation formed by using the first letters, or initials, of a series of words, for example BBC or IBM. This is called an initialism when the letters are sounded out, as in the previous example, but it is called an acronym when the abbreviation forms a pronouncable word, such as NATO or AIDS. However, this distinction is often lost in common speech; most people call both types of abbreviations acronyms.”

Source: Wikipedia.org

… expect we have no tag in HTML for this. There is no <initialism> tag. So, the rule really does seem to be:

  • If it’s not pronouncable, it goes into the <abbr> tag (which is precisely what the majority of phrases in Acrobot come under)
  • If it is pronouncable, then it is an <acronym>

However, there are still some grey areas:

  • What is SQL? Is it an acronym, abbreviation or initialism? Actually it’s an initialism, but how do you pronounce it? ‘Sequel’ or ‘S-Q-L’?
  • What is USA? Is it an acronym? No, letters are pronounced separately, so therefore it must be an abbreviation, as there is no letter for ‘of’, and therefore does not qualify as an initialism. So it must be an abbreviation.
  • Can you have a single letter acronym? ‘I’ is a word, it’s pronouncable in its own right. So, if you use ‘i’ as a shortened form for italics, is this an acronym? It seems to satisfy the rules as an acronym but somehow seems wrong (thanks to Mac for sowing this particular seed!)

It appears, therefore, that an acronym is a type of abbreviation - they are not mutually exclusive sets - and while it could be acceptable to mark up NATO as an abbreviation, it is better to mark it up for what it truly is - an acronym.

For anyone still reading this far, well done. It may seem a little off-track for Accessify, but bear in mind that these tags are very useful for increasing the understandability of a document, and you do need to know how to use them properly. The difference between these two tags may seem trivial to some people, but if you are using a screen reader or speech browser that recognises these tags, there is a real need to define how the phrase should be pronounced. If you do mark up a phrase such as BBC as an acronym, you might accidentally cause it to read out some garbled attempted pronunciation, but if you mark it up as an abbreviation, this is less likely to happen.

Remember, you can influence the way that devices read these phrases out in aural style sheet:

acronym {speak : normal;}

abbr.initialism {speak : spell-out;}

abbr.truncation {speak : normal;}


Source: Ben Meadowcroft

However, support for aural style sheets is almost non-existent presently. But that does not mean you shouldn’t use this - think of ‘forward compatibility’. Implement this now and when something comes along that does support it, you can sit back and smile smugly.

Finally, I had to include this quote (sent by e-mail from Gez). It’s the English teacher bit I love …

“An acronym must be pronounceable; otherwise it’s an abbreviation. My English teacher was quite definite on this, and also assured us that she was never wrong about anything.”

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Thursday, April 24, 2003

200186538

The
difference between acronyms and abbreviations

So, I thought I knew the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation when I built the Acrobot tool. As I mention on this page - Why you should use acronyms and abbreviations - there is a difference, which I defined like so:

An abbreviation is just that - a string of words that have been reduced to their initial leading letters. When you read it out, you naturally pronounce each letter individually.

NSPCC pronounced "Enn Ess Pee See See"

RNIB pronounced "Arr Enn Eye Bee"

An acronym is a special kind of abbreviation. Either by luck or design, the initial letters make up an abbreviation that can be read aloud as a word in its own right:

NASA pronounced "Nassa"

GUI pronounced "Gooey"

This was based on my understanding of the <acronym> and <abbr> tags. From HTMLhelp.com:

Unlike other kinds of abbreviations, acronyms are pronounceable words, though in some cases the pronunciation is strictly a presentation issue. For example, "SQL" and "URL" are pronounced as words by some people and pronounced letter-by-letter by others. In such cases, authors should use the ABBR element, possibly with a style sheet rule specifying the pronunciation for aural rendering.

http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/phrase/acronym.html

But then I received a note that suggested that my differentiation was not correct - that the issue was not about pronunciation of the word (as I had suggested) but more about whether the abbreviation was based on initial letters or some other kind of squishing down of the text. So, NATO is an acronym, as is WCAG (and not an abbreviation, according to my definition), but TX (meaning Texas) is an abbreviation.

Dictionary.com has the following definitions:

Acronym: A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women’s Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging.

Abbreviation: A shortened form of a word or phrase used chiefly in writing to represent the complete form, such as Mass. for Massachusetts or USMC for United States Marine Corps.

So, the question is: "Is the HTML specification incorrect in interpreting the meaning of these words? And if this is true, what should we be using?!"

I’d appreciate feedback on this - if you have something to offer that might clarify this, please get in touch.

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Wednesday, April 23, 2003

200180783

New cool tool to fix your acronyms

NEW:
Acrobot - Abbreviation & Acronym Generator
- Lets you quickly
convert blocks of text that feature well-known abbreviations and acronyms
into something more accessible. This tool will wrap a <abbr>
or <acronym> tag around any
matched entries
, thus, if you enter W3C,
it will be converted to <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>.

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Tuesday, April 22, 2003

200150515

Friday
links … except it’s only Tuesday

But there’s a bank holiday coming up and I’m knocking off early this week. So, it’ll be radio silence here for a few days. Until next week, here are a few interesting links for you to take a look at:

Here are a few of the benefits this template offers:

  • It’s XHTML 1.0 Strict-compliant - By jumping straight to XHTML 1.0 Strict (instead of moving to XHTML 1.0 Transitional), you won’t have to go back and rework your code.

  • It’s CSS2-compliant
    - The layout of this template is CSS2-driven, so presentation is completely separate from the content. There are no TABLE tags and no spacer GIFs.
  • It meets all of Section 508’s guidelines for Web accessibility - There are currently 16 guidelines specified for the accessibility of Web sites and Web-based applications. This template complies with all 16.

  • It’s cross-browser-compatible
    with Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Opera - The template works perfectly in the latest versions of the major browsers and it degrades gracefully in the older ones.
  • It’s small and loads quickly - The code, style sheets, and graphics all weigh in at around 18 KB.
Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Tuesday, April 15, 2003

200143894

Javascript and accessibility

Here’s a useful article that visitors to this site should check out: JavaScript and accessibility, written by Peter-Paul
Koch. In this article the author goes through a number of different JavaScript-related accessibility issues and offers some solutions or debunks the myths.

Regarding JavaScript and accessibility, there are two myths:

  1. Using any JavaScript at all means that your site is inaccessible.
  2. It’s impossible to build a modern site without JavaScript, so it’s just Too Bad For Accessibility.

Neither of these myths are true. As happens so often, the truth lies in the middle.

Strangely enough, while I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with the sentiment of the article mentioned above, I find myself disagreeing with another of Peter-Paul Koch’s articles featured in evolt, in which he argues that coding to web standards does not equal forward compatibility. While some of what he has to say rings true (after all, this site is coded to standards and fails dismally on a hiptop display), I think that the general rule about coding to standards increases the likelihood of forward compatibility is still true.

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Monday, April 14, 2003

200127465

Made
with Love

The new issue of Made For All is on the shelves. Actually, that’s a damn lie, it’s not on the shelf at all, it’s one of those new-fangled web site things. Apparently you can publish whatever you like nowadays without several trips down to KallKwik/Kinkos. All at the touch of a button. Anyway, enough of that - go read the interview with Joe Clark, my piece about South By Southwest and Tim’s piece about making web graphics accessible.

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Thursday, April 10, 2003

200127270

Digital Rights Wrong for Accessibility

Are you familiar with Digital Rights Management? Otherwise known as DRM, it’s all about protecting copyrighted works from being unlawfully copied. Whether you agree with the law is another matter - much of this will be enforced however much you protest (and if you do want to protest, you can start by checking out the Electronic Frontier Foundation).

Among the many problems with ever more restrictive copyright laws are the issues that it can present for accessibility. Joe Clark has looked into the subject and presents his findings in a piece entitled "Accessibility implications of digital rights management". This is not a piece covering web accessibility, however - it is primarily looking at the implications for captioning, television set-top boxes and so on. Regardless, the issues raised are important and should send out a warning to anyone in this field who may be thinking that increased copyright protection is for ‘the good of the people’.

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Thursday, April 10, 2003

200126896

Yahoo gets Bowman treatment

Mr Bowman, do
like your table-free layouts, don’t you? Doug’s been at it again (quote: "Alright. It was low-hanging fruit. I couldn’t resist."). This time he’s put together a table-free version of the new Yahoo search, demonstrating that it could have been built using valid XHTML and CSS.

Why does it always take individuals like Doug to show these things are possible - I mean, aren’t Yahoo supposed to be pioneers?

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Thursday, April 10, 2003

200126738

Freebie time

Spotted at netdiver today, there’s a free download that you may find useful. It’s entitled Design for Web Accessibility 1.0, and is a standalone set of pages that explain some of the issues. It’s not exactly comprehensive, but you may still find it of use as an introduction and may like the fact that it’s packaged up in an executable. Ironically, it is not, in itself, accessible. Here’s what they have to say about it on download.com:

"This program teaches you how to html code for greater web accessibility by the disabled. It gives code examples for table headers, alt-tags, and other html elements. This is a totally free product, given to help people code for greater web accessibility. Note: Because this ebook is in its own viewer, it is NOT web accessible."

Note that this is not actually a new addition to download.com - it’s been there since March of last year, but is new to me.

Learn for free

Meanwhile, over at westciv.com they’re offering free courses in CSS2. They know a thing or two about the topic, having brought us the Style Master CSS editor, Layout Master web page editor and the ever informative site House Of Style. From their site:

"CSS Level 2 takes up where our very successful foundation course CSS Level 1 leaves off. Over the weeks you’ll get to know CSS at the highest level, with browser support, accessibility and usability as a constant. You get to see not just the CSS positioning properties, but also a number of different approaches to page layout with this important web standard."

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Thursday, April 10, 2003

200095729

Some
new CSS links for your collection

Adrian Holovaty had a shock when he visited a site recently and found a navigation bar that was 50kb and extremely kludgy, so he decided to re-write it using CSS and ordered lists and then post it for all to plunder. I’m posting this here because his solution helps in a number of ways as far as accessibility is concerned:

  • it’s valid mark-up and therefore device-independent
  • it’s navigable with a keyboard - no mouse required
  • it’s screen-reader friendly (I tried in Jaws)
  • it’s a small filesize and demonstrates how much leaner your code can be
  • the entire block is clickable, not just the text (much like the navigation on Accesify) - which is better for everyone, particularly people with motor deficiencies (or just plain lazy people like myself)

It could be refined even further to improve the accessibility side of things (and wouldn’t take to much work)

  • title attributes on links that have sub-menus to indicate that there are sub-items ("this item contains sub-menus - hit return to reveal these links")
  • visually, a state change on the arrows would be good - perhaps a right arrow when not expanded, a down arrow when expended (much like the tree structure in Mac OS)

If I get time I may pick up on this and try to add in the above, although time is something I have little of at the moment, so don’t hold your breath!

Good work Adrian.


If you find some oddities while developing pages and need to know how your browser is rendering your code, try using the DOCTYPEs and Web Page Rendering tool at Copysense. Having selected a doctype, you simply press a button and it will tell you how the browser you are currently using renders your page (as in quirks or strict mode).

Filed under: Accessibility
Comments Off Posted by Ian on Friday, April 4, 2003
← Older PostsNewer Posts →