Live data from Hacker News

UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#41
post #3
post #2

> 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?)

They could put the e.g. inside a dfn tag or teach the screen readers how to read it.

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#42
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...

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
post #2

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#44
post #25

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

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

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#45
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.

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#46
post #45

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…

A comment on another site said that the author had heard someone claim ‘eg’ was short for ‘egsample’.

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#47
post #25

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

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

[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

#48
post #45

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…

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"?)

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#49

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

Supporting simple screen readers is a good thing, because it precludes much of the user-hostile crap that web ‘designers’ spew.

Re: UK government changes website guidelines due to buggy screen readers

#50

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 w…

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

Post reply on HN