RE: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms
Hi Kat, you've actually got your definitions in the wrong order. An acronym is a word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAG. It can be pronounced as 'wag' OR 'W.A.G', depending on your fancy. An abbreviation is just that, the abreviation of a common word for the purpose of brevity where the meaning is still implicit. Though I would dispute implicitness with many examples, particularly US states. ;) Either way, although an acronym is a class of abbreviation, an abbreviation is never a class of acronym. HTH -- Paul A Noone Webmaster, ASHM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kat Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 10:57 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms Gday, I was writing in my blog and was using acronyms and abbreviations and I realised I didn't know something about the right way of doing things, and I'm fairly confident someone here would. This may be off topic because it's a question of accessible and/or semantics. It may be also a little bit persnickety. I understand the difference between acronym and abbreviation, in that an acronym is pronounced as a word, is treated as a word, while an abbreviation is pronounced as a succession of letters. While I was writing, I definately used an abbreviation, created from the first letter of the phrase, eg, HTML. In this case it was one of my uni subjects, ISMR (Information Systems Maintenance and Re-engineering.) But in the next paragraph, I used the same convention of taking the first letter of each word in the phrase to create AIM (Accessible Interactive Multimedia). The Question: Since it can be an acronym, should I mark it up as an acronym, or should I stick to the convention I used earlier in the page to refer to other subjects and use abbreviation? It can be pronounced as the word 'aim' or as each individual letters. What makes more sense from the accessibility point of view? What makes more sense from the semantic point of view? Or is this just a personal choice and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the end result? Am I over analysing this to death? Kat I have this feeling there's an important point I'm missing somewhere. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms
What makes more sense from the accessibility point of view? What makes more sense from the semantic point of view? Or is this just a personal choice and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the end result? Am I over analysing this to death? I wrote a long post on this subject a while ago which talks about Abbreviations, Acronyms, Initialisms and Contractions: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg15231.html A hotly debated topic... Also discussed at length here: http://juicystudio.com/article/abbreviations-acronyms.php Problems? 1. Internet Explorers does not support abbr 2. While some assistive devices have the ability to present abbreviations and/or acronyms, this feature often needs to be turned on - in other words it is not a default setting. Some users of assistive devices find this additional information too confusing and would be unlikely to turn on this feature at all. Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms
At the end of the day what are we trying to achieve by using these tags? Does semantically correct code take precedence over usability? IMO, provided you are somehow offering a visible definition of the acronym or abbreviation - be it by use of a specific tag, or the ill-fated title attribute - I think you have achieved your objective. Frankly, at the moment it still seems that ALT and TITLE perform better cross-browser and also have the added benefit of not being mis-applied or misunderstood. Shoot me if you disagree but please, as is tradition, direct any personal abuse to me directly. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of russ - maxdesign Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 11:19 AM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms What makes more sense from the accessibility point of view? What makes more sense from the semantic point of view? Or is this just a personal choice and has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the end result? Am I over analysing this to death? I wrote a long post on this subject a while ago which talks about Abbreviations, Acronyms, Initialisms and Contractions: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg15231.html A hotly debated topic... Also discussed at length here: http://juicystudio.com/article/abbreviations-acronyms.php Problems? 1. Internet Explorers does not support abbr 2. While some assistive devices have the ability to present abbreviations and/or acronyms, this feature often needs to be turned on - in other words it is not a default setting. Some users of assistive devices find this additional information too confusing and would be unlikely to turn on this feature at all. Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms
G'day Paul Noone wrote: IMO, provided you are somehow offering a visible definition of the acronym or abbreviation - be it by use of a specific tag, or the ill-fated title attribute - I think you have achieved your objective. Or even the traditional way: Web Standards Group (WSG) the first time it is mentioned on the page. Frankly, at the moment it still seems that ALT and TITLE perform better cross-browser and also have the added benefit of not being mis-applied or misunderstood. The alt attribute is of course only applicable on images, while the title attribute does nothing on abbr in MSIE (Windows), since it does not understand abbr. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms
As far as I am aware acronym is deprecated in XHTML 2.0 in favor of abbr? Here is an article on it from Lars Holst which dates back to 2003, but I think that it is still very relevant. http://larsholst.info/blog/index.php?p=14more=1#more14-- __Bugs are, by definition, necessary. Just ask Microsoft! www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)www.arionshome.com (Personal)www.freexenon.com (Consulting)__Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox http://www.getfirefox.comMaking a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standardshttp://www.maccaws.org/Web Standards Project http://www.webstandards.org/Web Standards Grouphttp://www.webstandardsgroup.org/Guild of Accessible Web Designers http://www.gawds.org/
RE: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms
Makes good sense to me. Otherwise why stop at acronym? Next thing you'd have tags for slang, idiom, abstract, outline, summary...the list goes on. What we're trying to do is display a descriptive meaning. All this should be achived by way ofa singleattribute to a tag. I still don't see why althasn't beenimplemeted across the board for this purpose. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James O'NeillSent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:40 PMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms As far as I am aware acronym is deprecated in XHTML 2.0 in favor of abbr? Here is an article on it from Lars Holst which dates back to 2003, but I think that it is still very relevant.http://larsholst.info/blog/index.php?p=14more=1#more14-- __"Bugs are, by definition, necessary. Just ask Microsoft!"www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)www.arionshome.com (Personal)www.freexenon.com (Consulting)__Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox http://www.getfirefox.comMaking a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standardshttp://www.maccaws.org/Web Standards Project http://www.webstandards.org/Web Standards Grouphttp://www.webstandardsgroup.org/Guild of Accessible Web Designers http://www.gawds.org/
Re: [WSG] Abbreviations and Acronyms
[snip] ACRONYM and ABBR I take a fairly simplistic view on this one: 1) Future standards only include ABBR. 2) Acronyms are a form of abbreviation. 3) For the sake of good writing, you should spell out the full term on first use anyway. That covers bad browsers, too. so, I just use ABBR for anything which is a shorter form of another term or phrase. Obviously people don't usually spell out all acronyms, even though we really should. For specific industry terms it would get tedious; so a bit of discretion is good. Write for your audience and so on. h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
