> 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.
Could you explain why it is better than, say, "say"? (neat, huh?)
UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#42I 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...
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.
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#43> 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.
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#44Writing 'eg' instead of 'e.g.' or 'ie' instead of 'i.e.' is just dumb, though. So is confusing the two.
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
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#45"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.
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#46Aside 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…
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#47Writing 'eg' instead of 'e.g.' or 'ie' instead of 'i.e.' is just dumb, though. So is confusing the two.
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
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-e
[3] https://www.cam.ac.uk/brand-resources/guidelines/editorial-s...
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#48Aside 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…
(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"?)
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#49FFS can we stop spending billions on designing around screen readers and fucking spend billions on good screen readers.
Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers
#50I 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 w…
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