RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

That is very helpful, Moira. Kat's original query was: > If the glyph for No. (as outlined in Wikipedia: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.) is used, should this be in an > abbreviation element to explain it? It is an abbreviation, isn't it?? > > What do screen-readers make of this particular gly

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> I'd still like to know if using character entity references > and/or unicode for symbols and special characters will > actually convey web content more clearly to people who use > screen readers. Sometimes, sometimes not. I have JAWS 6.1 and 7.0 installed - both know about some Unicode ch

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On 2/8/07, Dmitry Baranovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Actually in both cases you shouldn't use 'x', but × or × >> Good point. But will a screen reader find '×' and say >> 'times', or for >> that matter Andrew's unicode alternatives? > > There's a key question. Anyone got a screen reader h

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On 8 Feb 2007, at 14:49:26, Andrew Maben wrote: On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: Would it make any sense to read out "I black hearts suit unicode"? The symbol has been used to indicate the word "love". FWIW, I happened to be reading the paper yesterday where the film wh

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On Feb 7, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: Would it make any sense to read out "I black hearts suit unicode"? The symbol has been used to indicate the word "love". FWIW, I happened to be reading the paper yesterday where the film whose title is represented in its ads and title on s

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

ge- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dmitry Baranovskiy > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:52 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph > > >> > Actually in both cases you shouldn't use 'x

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Why do we care if Google understands the ligature? 3x4 > doesn't seem like a keyword I would optimize for when it > comes to SEO... > There are lots of terms that might not seem like a keyword you would optimise for - until you get a client for whom it makes a difference. There's a clear SEO co

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On Thu, February 8, 2007 4:51 pm, Dmitry Baranovskiy wrote: > fl as ligaturehttp://www.google.com.au/search? > hl=en&q=flickr&btnG=Search&meta= > fl as two letters http://www.google.com.au/search? > hl=en&q=flickr&btnG=Search&meta= the fl ligature is probably a bad example.

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Dmitry Baranovskiy > Add to this “Will search engines correctly understand such a > symbols?” The answer is “No”. > > Compare: > > 3×4 > http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=3%D74&btnG=Search&meta= > 3x4 > http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=3x4&btnG=Search&meta=

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

On 2/8/07, Dmitry Baranovskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Actually in both cases you shouldn't use 'x', but × or × >> Good point. But will a screen reader find '×' and say >> 'times', or for >> that matter Andrew's unicode alternatives? > > There's a key question. Anyone got a screen reader h

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Actually in both cases you shouldn't use 'x', but × or × Good point. But will a screen reader find '×' and say 'times', or for that matter Andrew's unicode alternatives? There's a key question. Anyone got a screen reader handy to test it? Sadly I don't... Add to this “Will search engines

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Actually in both cases you shouldn't use 'x', but × or × Good point. But will a screen reader find '×' and say 'times', or for that matter Andrew's unicode alternatives? There's a key question. Anyone got a screen reader handy to test it? Sadly I don't... -- --- ---

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Actually in both cases you shouldn't use ‘x’, but × or × > Good point. But will a screen reader find '×' and say 'times', or for that matter Andrew's unicode alternatives? If so, I'd be as happy to use that as I am to use '&' instead of '&'. > In this cases ‘×’ is a shortcut to ‘times’ and

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

'x' can be a ligature when it's a symbol for the word 'times'. A screen reader should say 'times' when it finds 'x' in the context of 11 x 5 = 55 (please God, let my maths be right). 'x' can be a ligature when it's a symbol for the word 'by'. A screen reader should say 'by' when it finds '

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Ben Buchanan wrote: [snip excellent examples of all the meanings of x] None of these is an abbreviation. Maybe not, but ABBR is the closest thing we've got in HTML. After that, we're left with harsh language (http://www.maxdesign.com.au/2006/02/03/harsh-language/). Or maybe more precise use

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

[snip excellent examples of all the meanings of x] None of these is an abbreviation. Maybe not, but ABBR is the closest thing we've got in HTML. After that, we're left with harsh language (http://www.maxdesign.com.au/2006/02/03/harsh-language/). 'No.' is an abbreviation of the word 'number'.

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Ricky Onsman wrote: So how do we tell screen readers (and browsers) which is the right function, depending on the context? As long as the language we use to mark up content does not natively cater for this infusion of meaning, we can either hack around the shortcomings of HTML by perverting

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Ben Buchanan wrote: Reducing a whole concept to a symbol? Wild ;) In more general terms, that's exactly what language does... eg. How do you get a screen reader to vocalise what the author intended with a visual communication? The only available method that I can think of is to wrap an ABBR a

RE: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> So is "&" an abbreviation for "and"? It is ligature, that > stands for "and", but should we really mark it up as ? '+' is a ligature and a symbol for the word 'plus'. A screen reader should say 'plus' when it finds '+'. '&' is a ligature and a symbol for the word 'ampersand'. But a screen rea

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

If you wanted to use a symbol to represent "love" you would use a different unicode character, maybe U+2764 HEAVY BLACK HEART in the Dingbats block or one of the alternative Dingbats. HEAVY BLACK HEART still isn't "love". I doubt anyone would get far with a line like "I heavy black heart you!" :

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Ben Buchanan wrote: Think about the heart symbol. It's in UTF as "black hearts suit" or something. But people use it to say "I [heart] unicode". Would it make any sense to read out "I black hearts suit unicode"? The symbol has been used to indicate the word "love". actually I wouldn't use U+

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

They aren't abbreviations they are symbols representing a word or concept. They're sort of the ultimate in abbreviation when you think about it that way ;) Reducing a whole concept to a symbol? Wild ;) The issue that I'm ultimately thinking about is vocalisation, although SEO might come into it

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

So is “&” an abbreviation for “and”? It is ligature, that stands for “and”, but should we really mark it up as ? The next question is how screen readers will read text with special characters (№12345)? *** List Guidelines: htt

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Katrina wrote: Andrew Cunningham wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: Ben Buchanan wrote: > Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with > alt or title attributes. I assume when Ben wrote "glyph" he meant "character". A glyph is a visual representation of character that

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Andrew Cunningham wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: Ben Buchanan wrote: > Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with > alt or title attributes. I assume when Ben wrote "glyph" he meant "character". A glyph is a visual representation of character that can vary betwee

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Dmitry Baranovskiy wrote: I think Ben was talking about “No.”, not about “№”. Kat wrote: If the glyph for No. The preposition "for" suggests otherwise. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsub

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

> Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with > alt or title attributes. I strongly disagree. All glyphs have an agreed upon meaning as indicated by their context[1]. They are *NOT* abbreviations. Is a capital sigma a glyph representing summation or a letter in the Greek

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Christian Montoya wrote: Ben Buchanan wrote: > Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with > alt or title attributes. I assume when Ben wrote "glyph" he meant "character". A glyph is a visual representation of character that can vary between languages, geographic r

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

You are right Mordechai, but I think Ben was talking about “No.”, not about “№”. In first case abbreviation is a good thing, in second useless. best regards, Dmitry Baranovskiy On 08/02/2007, at 9:32 AM, Mordechai Peller wrote: Ben Buchanan wrote: Personally I think glyphs/entities in HT

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

I have to agree with you Mordechai - a very good point! On 2/8/07, Mordechai Peller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ben Buchanan wrote: > Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with > alt or title attributes. I strongly disagree. All glyphs have an agreed upon meaning as i

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Ben Buchanan wrote: > Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with > alt or title attributes. Aren't glyphs not specific to HTML? They are codes for finding a specific character on the user's machine, right? So why make them something that depends on browser support/inte

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

Ben Buchanan wrote: Personally I think glyphs/entities in HTML should have been tags with alt or title attributes. I strongly disagree. All glyphs have an agreed upon meaning as indicated by their context[1]. They are *NOT* abbreviations. Is a capital sigma a glyph representing summation or a l

Re: [WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

If the glyph for No. (as outlined in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.) is used, should this be in an abbreviation element to explain it? It is an abbreviation, isn't it?? What do screen-readers make of this particular glyph, if anything? Or should it be kept as No., which is quite commo

[WSG] No. abbreviation glyph

I have confused myself :) If the glyph for No. (as outlined in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.) is used, should this be in an abbreviation element to explain it? It is an abbreviation, isn't it?? What do screen-readers make of this particular glyph, if anything? Or should it be k