6 ms·

UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

61 points by xopher 10y ago

lmm 10y ago
> And while ‘e.g.’ gets read correctly by screen readers, there are better, clearer ways of introducing examples for all users. Strongly disagree. "e.g." has its place; it is often clearer than any alternative. Likewise "i.e.". "eg" is unpleasantly confusing even as an ordinary reader and should never have been allowed, but to remove "e.g." too is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- kitd 10y ago
  Could you explain why it is better than, say, "say"? (neat, huh?)
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    Because there are cases where that's a weird thing to say, say, this exact sentence.
  - lmm 10y ago
    They carry different connotations; "say" suggests a single example that is not necessarily representative but rather being used to make it easier to express the following part, whereas "e.g." can mean a list, and puts the emphasis on the examples themselves. One isn't better or worse than the other; rather both have their use cases.
  - timthorn 10y ago
    Because e.g. is formal and "say" is informal.
  - supergreg 10y ago
    They could put the e.g. inside a dfn tag or teach the screen readers how to read it.
    - jscholes 10y ago
      > They could put the e.g. inside a dfn tag or teach the screen readers how to read it. I'm afraid not. AFAIK, screen readers don't apply any special processing for DFN tags. Speaking as someone who's using a screen reader to read this thread and proofread this comment, I'm not sure I'd want them to either, and I hadn't even heard of them until today. Also, screen readers are able to speak through several, possibly hundreds, of different speech engines, so you would have to teach each of those engines to deal with these corner cases separately. Given that many of them were developed ten plus years ago and are now no longer under active development despite continued widespread usage, that's not really a realistic goal. N.B. AFAIK is spoken by my screen reader/speech engine combo as "uh-fake". As a blind software developer, I have much bigger problems to worry about than memorising how my software speaks abbreviations. I of course don't speak for everyone though and clearer communication is always an excellent goal.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rspeer 10y ago
  In what cases would "e.g." be better than "for example", aside from when you're desperately short on space? Most of the cases I see "e.g." and "i.e." -- with or without the dots -- it means "I'm putting zero effort into putting these phrases together into a clear sentence."
Flimm 10y ago
The comments section of the blog post is a perfect example of bike-shedding.
franciscop 10y ago
I love what UK Gov is doing, they actually sound like the kind of business that I'd love to work with (I'm totally surprised because it's a Government) and I'm learning a lot just with these articles. I'd also love to see other governments to take a similar approach, but that seems highly unlikely for most countries including Spain (where I am from).
- lukiebriner 10y ago
  It has worked because they've done what goes against normal government behaviour and that is, "keep it simple". They are also learning to share resources so that multiple government sites can share postal and payment engines - something which is so obvious but so lacking!
- robin_reala 10y ago
  We’re hiring back-end developers and web-ops currently, maybe you should apply?
  - bigblind 10y ago
    How is this relevant to the conversation?
    - hobs 10y ago
      Because they are working on UK Government projects, check the profile :)
  - franciscop 10y ago
    Thanks, it looks great and I'd consider it in 8-10 months, but I am committed to doing some contracting/projects right now.
- GrantSolar 10y ago
  NHS is also very good in my opinion. http://alpha.nhs.uk http://alpha.nhs.uk comes in at 100KB with fonts
akavel 10y ago
Is it actually officially correct to use "eg" instead of "e.g.", and "ie" instead of "i.e." in English? (UK, US, AU, or whichever else?) Both http://dictionary.cambridge.org http://dictionary.cambridge.org and http://dictionary.com http://dictionary.com seem to show only "e.g." and "i.e." for me?
- efaref 10y ago
  No, the correct form is "e.g." and "i.e.", and screen readers cope with those fine. People also get "etc." wrong a lot, writing it as "ect", which presumably screen readers would fail at, too. Since people get it wrong, and there are more natural ways of writing these, these guidelines seem quite reasonable.
  - akavel 10y ago
    Ah, this seems to make sense, thx! Pity that this extended rationale is not present in the original article. Actually, this seems to render the article's claim rather unfair in laying the blame on screen readers ("[screen readers] read ‘eg’ incorrectly"), as it appears it should be rather "we have many errors of 'eg' instead of 'e.g.' in our texts, and they're too hard to catch for our editors" edit: personally, I don't have to use a screen reader, but I do read words "aloud" in my mind when reading, and I believe seeing "eg" or "ie" without dots would make me stumble mentally too...
    - efaref 10y ago
      It seems that a lot of style guides these days actually recommend "eg" and "ie" over the versions with dots in a misguided attempt at simplification. I guess with those guides out there, the damage is already done. Personally I always try to re-write sentences that use "e.g.", "i.e." or "etc.", as I think they're symptomatic of lazy writing. There's usually a much better way to write what you're trying to say. Similarly with excessive use of parenthetical clauses.
  - jscholes 10y ago
    > People also get "etc." wrong a lot, writing it as "ect", which presumably screen readers would fail at, too. You seem to be assuming that a screen reader's job is to somehow communicate meaning. It isn't. It's my job to listen and decide what I'm hearing. If you read "ect.", your brain automatically corrects it to "etc." because you're used to seeing it often. It's probably subconscious, right? It works exactly the same for me. I'm well-versed in the spelling/grammatical/other errors many people make when writing, the only difference is that I consume them via my ears, not my eyes. Or, to put it another way, think about a guide dog. Its job is to actually guide a blind person, make decisions, keep them safe. It actually has to think. I prefer my assistive technology as dumb as possible though, so I use a cane. Its my job to use the cane, take in what it's telling me about the ground and area immediately around me, and quickly make decisions based on that information. The screen reader is more like a cane than a guide dog, basically.
quirkot 10y ago
i.e., "We've decided it would be easier to make everyone who updates a page on the GOV.UK website change their language than to make everyone that makes screen reading software produce a product that reads screens correctly"
- jscholes 10y ago
  > i.e., "We've decided it would be easier to make everyone who updates a page on the GOV.UK website change their language than to make everyone that makes screen reading software produce a product that reads screens correctly" See my previous comments in this thread to learn why this is necessary, and why it's unrealistic to expect screen readers to "just work™". It's a nice goal, but it won't happen.
aaron695 10y ago
FFS can we stop spending billions on designing around screen readers and fucking spend billions on good screen readers.
- octo_t 10y ago
  this doesn't address the complaint that non-native english speakers may not know what `e.g.` and `etc.` mean.
  - efaref 10y ago
    Presumably native latin speakers will feel right at home. :-)
- josephmx 10y ago
  I don't think this will cost that much...
- raverbashing 10y ago
  I think they can't think of all situations (like people writing eg instead of e.g. or eff eff ess)
- teamonkey 10y ago
  How does a screen reader translate FFS?
  - manarth 10y ago
    Abbreviations on the web can be expanded using the abbr tag: <abbr title="Fat Finger Syndrome">FFS</abbr> This also helps reduce ambiguity about the meaning of an acronym, improving the communication of semantic intent. That said, it appears that expansion of <abbr> isn't consistently supported[1]. I suspect most screenreaders would simply say "Eff Eff Ess". [1] http://www.powermapper.com/tests/screen-readers/labelling/acronym-abbr-title/ http://www.powermapper.com/tests/screen-readers/labelling/ac...
    - 10y ago
vineus 10y ago
They could have changed it to their original form: "et cetera", "ergo", "id est"
- dmurray 10y ago
  "e.g." does not mean "ergo".
- raverbashing 10y ago
  e.g. is not ergo, it's "exempli gratia" (for the sake of example)
  - vineus 10y ago
    My mistake, thanks!
- Retr0spectrum 10y ago
  > Anyone who didn’t grow up speaking English may not be familiar with them. Even fewer people are familiar with Latin.
marktangotango 10y ago
A lot of developers aren't familiar with ADA compliance, it could become something we're (edit all US based developers) all talking about in the near future. http://www.technologylawsource.com/2015/06/articles/information-technology/the-focus-of-the-ada-turns-to-websites-in-the-digital-age-is-your-website-compliant/ http://www.technologylawsource.com/2015/06/articles/informat...
- kminehart 10y ago
  This is only a requirement for government entities and non-profits at the moment. For those who didn't read the article, in April of 2016 the Department of Justice, the organization responsible for the Americans with Disabilities Act, has proposed an amendment, which will "require public entities and public accommodations that provide products or services to the public through websites on the Internet to make their sites accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.". Immediately after, the article says that they were careful not to suggest that currently inaccessible websites are exempt. So if you have a website currently up and you're providing a product or service, similar to having a wheelchair accessible entrance, you may be required to provide a more accessible website, or an accessible alternative. For those of you who aren't familiar with website accessibility, you might want to brush up on the ADA guidelines. https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm I tend to test run my websites through Lynx to make sure it works fine without JavaScript, try to navigate with only a keyboard in Chrome and Firefox, and try it out with a cheap or free screenreader like Chromevox.
wtbob 10y ago
Writing 'eg' instead of 'e.g.' or 'ie' instead of 'i.e.' is just dumb, though. So is confusing the two.
- csours 10y ago
  1. Not everyone is a fluent English reader. If you are providing government services, you have to provide them to "dumb" people as well. "Dumb" in this case includes a lot of smart people who were not raised with English as their first language. 2. There is no official version of the English language. Pronunciations, spellings and style guides change over time. Disclaimer: This post is subject to Muphry's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > Not everyone is a fluent English reader. I.e. & e.g. aren't English, but rather Latin. Any educated person in the Western world should understand them, no?
- manarth 10y ago
  The Economist recommends "eg" (no full-stops) in its style-guide[1]. As does the Guardian/Observer[2], and the University of Cambridge[3]. There are counter-examples, such as AP and NYT, but this usage - without full-stops - is not uncommon or abnormal. [1] http://www.economist.com/style-guide/abbreviations http://www.economist.com/style-guide/abbreviations [2] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-e https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-e [3] https://www.cam.ac.uk/brand-resources/guidelines/editorial-style-guide https://www.cam.ac.uk/brand-resources/guidelines/editorial-s...
kennydude 10y ago
People will use buggy software, and I think some of the things it might say would be quite amusing: "If you have committed any crimes egg tax fraud, insurance fraud, theft" Egg tax fraud anyone?
grahamel 10y ago
previously submitted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12157284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12157284
robert_tweed 10y ago
I think a lot of commenters in this thread are missing an important point about accessibility. It does not just mean "works with screen readers". It means easily understood by anyone. A lot of people confuse the terms e.g. and i.e. so it is normally better to say "For example" or "That is" because these are natural phrases that will be clearly understood by a greater number of people. I try to constantly improve my writing style, where improve normally means "simplify". I am personally guilty of overusing these abbreviations through force of habit, but I edit them out when I can. For anywhere with a formal house style, adopting this seems to make sense, even for things like scientific papers. Excessive use of jargon is a common accessibility problem and in most cases, there's no good reason for it other than dogma. I am also a big fan of the old Borland "no nonsense licence" for similar reasons. For anyone that hasn't read it, here's a link: http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_Treat_Software_Just_Like_a_Book_/ http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_Treat... This just illustrates that even something requiring the precision of a legal document can be written in plain, approachable English. There really is no excuse.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Many documents and websites produced by government in the UK have the "Crystal Mark for Plain English". Details at [1]. I don't notice the difference, but non-natives have occasionally said they've been surprised when certain information is clear, such as letters from a bank. [1] http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark.html http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark.html
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    You probably would have noticed the difference in the 80s and 90s when banks and others still wrote in tortuous, horrifically formal, English. Why take two sentences when a page and a half would do? Usually the only places you still regularly saw "inst", notwithstanding and heretofore. If you wanted to understand at first reading being a contract lawyer helped. The Plain English Campaign took out most of the low hanging fruit years back.
pluma 10y ago
Aside from the quirky interpreations of "eg" and "ie" that triggered this decision, the abbreviations "e.g." and "i.e." are actually problematic, especially when dealing with non-native speakers (or even simply people who had no exposure to Latin). "e.g." means "exempli gratia" -- I am fairly confident the majority of readers in an international audience (or maybe even a national one) will not actually know this and come up with their own personal backronym (like "ergo" or "example given"). "i.e." means "id est" (literally "that is") -- I know for a fact that even people with some exposure to Latin get this one wrong and instead think it means something like "in exemplum", which actually leads to people using it incorrectly when they should actually use "e.g.". I know this is what I did as a teenager in Germany (while learning Latin in school) and I know that this is what many of my German colleagues tend to do, simply because it seems like an obvious equivalent of the German "zum Beispiel" ("for example"). In the context of a website that explicitly tries to use simple English when possible, I think it is perfectly valid to preempt this confusion and not use phrases which are not actually English and can trivially be substituted with unabbreviated English equivalents in prose (whereas even the unabbreviated Latin would likely not help the reader). EDIT: I'm not saying you shouldn't use "e.g." or "i.e." ever. I personally use them all the time. But it's absolutely consistent to avoid them when you're trying to use simple language to be understood by a broad audience with varying levels of comprehension.
- robin_reala 10y ago
  A comment on another site said that the author had heard someone claim ‘eg’ was short for ‘egsample’.
- waqf 10y ago
  I don't see what knowing these abbreviations has to do with knowing Latin. They are, to all intents and purposes, English words used in English writing, and people who have had the opportunity to develop a good English vocabulary in other respects will have learned these words too. (Note, I grew up in England. I have begun to suspect that these abbreviations are used a little less in the US. But there again, if that is the case then the problem still lies with people's unfamiliarity due to not much usage — or perhaps with screen readers' unfamiliarity due to US-centric development — not with Latin.) (Also, wouldn't the German equivalent of "i.e." be "d.h." which I'm sure I've seen for "das heißt"?)
erlehmann_ 10y ago
Would using the HTML <abbr> element with an appropriate title attribute help here?
aries1980 10y ago
So no more PM, AM, AD, BC, DIY, ASAP, LOL, Dr, PhD, OBE, KBE either I guess.

61 points by xopher 10y ago

lmm 10y ago

> And while ‘e.g.’ gets read correctly by screen readers, there are better, clearer ways of introducing examples for all users. Strongly disagree. "e.g." has its place; it is often clearer than any alternative. Likewise "i.e.". "eg" is unpleasantly confusing even as an ordinary reader and should never have been allowed, but to remove "e.g." too is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

kitd 10y ago
Could you explain why it is better than, say, "say"? (neat, huh?)
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Because there are cases where that's a weird thing to say, say, this exact sentence.
- lmm 10y ago
  They carry different connotations; "say" suggests a single example that is not necessarily representative but rather being used to make it easier to express the following part, whereas "e.g." can mean a list, and puts the emphasis on the examples themselves. One isn't better or worse than the other; rather both have their use cases.
- timthorn 10y ago
  Because e.g. is formal and "say" is informal.
- supergreg 10y ago
  They could put the e.g. inside a dfn tag or teach the screen readers how to read it.
  - jscholes 10y ago
    > They could put the e.g. inside a dfn tag or teach the screen readers how to read it. I'm afraid not. AFAIK, screen readers don't apply any special processing for DFN tags. Speaking as someone who's using a screen reader to read this thread and proofread this comment, I'm not sure I'd want them to either, and I hadn't even heard of them until today. Also, screen readers are able to speak through several, possibly hundreds, of different speech engines, so you would have to teach each of those engines to deal with these corner cases separately. Given that many of them were developed ten plus years ago and are now no longer under active development despite continued widespread usage, that's not really a realistic goal. N.B. AFAIK is spoken by my screen reader/speech engine combo as "uh-fake". As a blind software developer, I have much bigger problems to worry about than memorising how my software speaks abbreviations. I of course don't speak for everyone though and clearer communication is always an excellent goal.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rspeer 10y ago
In what cases would "e.g." be better than "for example", aside from when you're desperately short on space? Most of the cases I see "e.g." and "i.e." -- with or without the dots -- it means "I'm putting zero effort into putting these phrases together into a clear sentence."

Flimm 10y ago

The comments section of the blog post is a perfect example of bike-shedding.

franciscop 10y ago

I love what UK Gov is doing, they actually sound like the kind of business that I'd love to work with (I'm totally surprised because it's a Government) and I'm learning a lot just with these articles. I'd also love to see other governments to take a similar approach, but that seems highly unlikely for most countries including Spain (where I am from).

lukiebriner 10y ago
It has worked because they've done what goes against normal government behaviour and that is, "keep it simple". They are also learning to share resources so that multiple government sites can share postal and payment engines - something which is so obvious but so lacking!
robin_reala 10y ago
We’re hiring back-end developers and web-ops currently, maybe you should apply?
- bigblind 10y ago
  How is this relevant to the conversation?
  - hobs 10y ago
    Because they are working on UK Government projects, check the profile :)
- franciscop 10y ago
  Thanks, it looks great and I'd consider it in 8-10 months, but I am committed to doing some contracting/projects right now.
GrantSolar 10y ago
NHS is also very good in my opinion. http://alpha.nhs.uk http://alpha.nhs.uk comes in at 100KB with fonts

akavel 10y ago

Is it actually officially correct to use "eg" instead of "e.g.", and "ie" instead of "i.e." in English? (UK, US, AU, or whichever else?) Both http://dictionary.cambridge.org http://dictionary.cambridge.org and http://dictionary.com http://dictionary.com seem to show only "e.g." and "i.e." for me?

efaref 10y ago
No, the correct form is "e.g." and "i.e.", and screen readers cope with those fine. People also get "etc." wrong a lot, writing it as "ect", which presumably screen readers would fail at, too. Since people get it wrong, and there are more natural ways of writing these, these guidelines seem quite reasonable.
- akavel 10y ago
  Ah, this seems to make sense, thx! Pity that this extended rationale is not present in the original article. Actually, this seems to render the article's claim rather unfair in laying the blame on screen readers ("[screen readers] read ‘eg’ incorrectly"), as it appears it should be rather "we have many errors of 'eg' instead of 'e.g.' in our texts, and they're too hard to catch for our editors" edit: personally, I don't have to use a screen reader, but I do read words "aloud" in my mind when reading, and I believe seeing "eg" or "ie" without dots would make me stumble mentally too...
  - efaref 10y ago
    It seems that a lot of style guides these days actually recommend "eg" and "ie" over the versions with dots in a misguided attempt at simplification. I guess with those guides out there, the damage is already done. Personally I always try to re-write sentences that use "e.g.", "i.e." or "etc.", as I think they're symptomatic of lazy writing. There's usually a much better way to write what you're trying to say. Similarly with excessive use of parenthetical clauses.
- jscholes 10y ago
  > People also get "etc." wrong a lot, writing it as "ect", which presumably screen readers would fail at, too. You seem to be assuming that a screen reader's job is to somehow communicate meaning. It isn't. It's my job to listen and decide what I'm hearing. If you read "ect.", your brain automatically corrects it to "etc." because you're used to seeing it often. It's probably subconscious, right? It works exactly the same for me. I'm well-versed in the spelling/grammatical/other errors many people make when writing, the only difference is that I consume them via my ears, not my eyes. Or, to put it another way, think about a guide dog. Its job is to actually guide a blind person, make decisions, keep them safe. It actually has to think. I prefer my assistive technology as dumb as possible though, so I use a cane. Its my job to use the cane, take in what it's telling me about the ground and area immediately around me, and quickly make decisions based on that information. The screen reader is more like a cane than a guide dog, basically.

quirkot 10y ago

i.e., "We've decided it would be easier to make everyone who updates a page on the GOV.UK website change their language than to make everyone that makes screen reading software produce a product that reads screens correctly"

jscholes 10y ago
> i.e., "We've decided it would be easier to make everyone who updates a page on the GOV.UK website change their language than to make everyone that makes screen reading software produce a product that reads screens correctly" See my previous comments in this thread to learn why this is necessary, and why it's unrealistic to expect screen readers to "just work™". It's a nice goal, but it won't happen.

aaron695 10y ago

FFS can we stop spending billions on designing around screen readers and fucking spend billions on good screen readers.

octo_t 10y ago
this doesn't address the complaint that non-native english speakers may not know what `e.g.` and `etc.` mean.
- efaref 10y ago
  Presumably native latin speakers will feel right at home. :-)
josephmx 10y ago
I don't think this will cost that much...
raverbashing 10y ago
I think they can't think of all situations (like people writing eg instead of e.g. or eff eff ess)
teamonkey 10y ago
How does a screen reader translate FFS?
- manarth 10y ago
  Abbreviations on the web can be expanded using the abbr tag: <abbr title="Fat Finger Syndrome">FFS</abbr> This also helps reduce ambiguity about the meaning of an acronym, improving the communication of semantic intent. That said, it appears that expansion of <abbr> isn't consistently supported[1]. I suspect most screenreaders would simply say "Eff Eff Ess". [1] http://www.powermapper.com/tests/screen-readers/labelling/acronym-abbr-title/ http://www.powermapper.com/tests/screen-readers/labelling/ac...
  - 10y ago

vineus 10y ago

They could have changed it to their original form: "et cetera", "ergo", "id est"

dmurray 10y ago
"e.g." does not mean "ergo".
raverbashing 10y ago
e.g. is not ergo, it's "exempli gratia" (for the sake of example)
- vineus 10y ago
  My mistake, thanks!
Retr0spectrum 10y ago
> Anyone who didn’t grow up speaking English may not be familiar with them. Even fewer people are familiar with Latin.

marktangotango 10y ago

A lot of developers aren't familiar with ADA compliance, it could become something we're (edit all US based developers) all talking about in the near future. http://www.technologylawsource.com/2015/06/articles/information-technology/the-focus-of-the-ada-turns-to-websites-in-the-digital-age-is-your-website-compliant/ http://www.technologylawsource.com/2015/06/articles/informat...

kminehart 10y ago
This is only a requirement for government entities and non-profits at the moment. For those who didn't read the article, in April of 2016 the Department of Justice, the organization responsible for the Americans with Disabilities Act, has proposed an amendment, which will "require public entities and public accommodations that provide products or services to the public through websites on the Internet to make their sites accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.". Immediately after, the article says that they were careful not to suggest that currently inaccessible websites are exempt. So if you have a website currently up and you're providing a product or service, similar to having a wheelchair accessible entrance, you may be required to provide a more accessible website, or an accessible alternative. For those of you who aren't familiar with website accessibility, you might want to brush up on the ADA guidelines. https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm I tend to test run my websites through Lynx to make sure it works fine without JavaScript, try to navigate with only a keyboard in Chrome and Firefox, and try it out with a cheap or free screenreader like Chromevox.

wtbob 10y ago

Writing 'eg' instead of 'e.g.' or 'ie' instead of 'i.e.' is just dumb, though. So is confusing the two.

csours 10y ago
1. Not everyone is a fluent English reader. If you are providing government services, you have to provide them to "dumb" people as well. "Dumb" in this case includes a lot of smart people who were not raised with English as their first language. 2. There is no official version of the English language. Pronunciations, spellings and style guides change over time. Disclaimer: This post is subject to Muphry's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Not everyone is a fluent English reader. I.e. & e.g. aren't English, but rather Latin. Any educated person in the Western world should understand them, no?
manarth 10y ago
The Economist recommends "eg" (no full-stops) in its style-guide[1]. As does the Guardian/Observer[2], and the University of Cambridge[3]. There are counter-examples, such as AP and NYT, but this usage - without full-stops - is not uncommon or abnormal. [1] http://www.economist.com/style-guide/abbreviations http://www.economist.com/style-guide/abbreviations [2] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-e https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-e [3] https://www.cam.ac.uk/brand-resources/guidelines/editorial-style-guide https://www.cam.ac.uk/brand-resources/guidelines/editorial-s...

kennydude 10y ago

People will use buggy software, and I think some of the things it might say would be quite amusing: "If you have committed any crimes egg tax fraud, insurance fraud, theft" Egg tax fraud anyone?

grahamel 10y ago

previously submitted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12157284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12157284

robert_tweed 10y ago

I think a lot of commenters in this thread are missing an important point about accessibility. It does not just mean "works with screen readers". It means easily understood by anyone. A lot of people confuse the terms e.g. and i.e. so it is normally better to say "For example" or "That is" because these are natural phrases that will be clearly understood by a greater number of people. I try to constantly improve my writing style, where improve normally means "simplify". I am personally guilty of overusing these abbreviations through force of habit, but I edit them out when I can. For anywhere with a formal house style, adopting this seems to make sense, even for things like scientific papers. Excessive use of jargon is a common accessibility problem and in most cases, there's no good reason for it other than dogma. I am also a big fan of the old Borland "no nonsense licence" for similar reasons. For anyone that hasn't read it, here's a link: http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_Treat_Software_Just_Like_a_Book_/ http://www.osnews.com/story/22342/Borland_in_the_1980s_Treat... This just illustrates that even something requiring the precision of a legal document can be written in plain, approachable English. There really is no excuse.

Symbiote 10y ago
Many documents and websites produced by government in the UK have the "Crystal Mark for Plain English". Details at [1]. I don't notice the difference, but non-natives have occasionally said they've been surprised when certain information is clear, such as letters from a bank. [1] http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark.html http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/services/crystal-mark.html
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  You probably would have noticed the difference in the 80s and 90s when banks and others still wrote in tortuous, horrifically formal, English. Why take two sentences when a page and a half would do? Usually the only places you still regularly saw "inst", notwithstanding and heretofore. If you wanted to understand at first reading being a contract lawyer helped. The Plain English Campaign took out most of the low hanging fruit years back.

pluma 10y ago

Aside from the quirky interpreations of "eg" and "ie" that triggered this decision, the abbreviations "e.g." and "i.e." are actually problematic, especially when dealing with non-native speakers (or even simply people who had no exposure to Latin). "e.g." means "exempli gratia" -- I am fairly confident the majority of readers in an international audience (or maybe even a national one) will not actually know this and come up with their own personal backronym (like "ergo" or "example given"). "i.e." means "id est" (literally "that is") -- I know for a fact that even people with some exposure to Latin get this one wrong and instead think it means something like "in exemplum", which actually leads to people using it incorrectly when they should actually use "e.g.". I know this is what I did as a teenager in Germany (while learning Latin in school) and I know that this is what many of my German colleagues tend to do, simply because it seems like an obvious equivalent of the German "zum Beispiel" ("for example"). In the context of a website that explicitly tries to use simple English when possible, I think it is perfectly valid to preempt this confusion and not use phrases which are not actually English and can trivially be substituted with unabbreviated English equivalents in prose (whereas even the unabbreviated Latin would likely not help the reader). EDIT: I'm not saying you shouldn't use "e.g." or "i.e." ever. I personally use them all the time. But it's absolutely consistent to avoid them when you're trying to use simple language to be understood by a broad audience with varying levels of comprehension.

robin_reala 10y ago
A comment on another site said that the author had heard someone claim ‘eg’ was short for ‘egsample’.
waqf 10y ago
I don't see what knowing these abbreviations has to do with knowing Latin. They are, to all intents and purposes, English words used in English writing, and people who have had the opportunity to develop a good English vocabulary in other respects will have learned these words too. (Note, I grew up in England. I have begun to suspect that these abbreviations are used a little less in the US. But there again, if that is the case then the problem still lies with people's unfamiliarity due to not much usage — or perhaps with screen readers' unfamiliarity due to US-centric development — not with Latin.) (Also, wouldn't the German equivalent of "i.e." be "d.h." which I'm sure I've seen for "das heißt"?)

erlehmann_ 10y ago

Would using the HTML <abbr> element with an appropriate title attribute help here?

aries1980 10y ago

So no more PM, AM, AD, BC, DIY, ASAP, LOL, Dr, PhD, OBE, KBE either I guess.