Just wondering if someone can help me understand abbreviations in WCAG 2.0.
In WCAG 1.0, you only needed to use abbr/acronym on the first element on the page of an abbreviation. Now in WCAG 2.0, Guideline 3.1.4 do you need to apply it to all abbreviations on the entire page?
Does this also apply to common abbreviations like "M.", "PhD", "BA", etc.?
Could someone help me interpret the Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.4 example of a Medical website? Does that mean I need to create two dictionaries on separate pages to relate the information on the site? I'm having a hard time understanding it.
WCAG 2.0 How to Meet 3.1.4 presents two principles for an abbreviation that has only one meaning on the page: “Providing the expansion or explanation of an abbreviation for the first occurrence of the abbreviation” and “Providing the expansion or explanation of an abbreviation for all occurrences of the abbreviation”, which both link to G102, though with different techniques listed. There are various ways to interpret this. But perhaps the most natural interpretation is that both are required. However, neither of them requires the use of the abbr element; it is just one of the techniques. For example, for the latter, a glossary of abbreviations and their explanations is sufficient. For the former, assuming such a glossary is presented, it is sufficient that (at least) the first occurrence of an abbreviation links to an entry in it.
As it is written, WCAG 2.0 seems to say that all abbreviations be explained. However, the definition of abbreviation excludes abbreviations that have “become part of the language”. This is vague, but it seems to say that very common abbreviations, like “e.g.” in English, need not be explained. The abbreviations you mention might be borderline cases. On the practical side, we can ask whether the intended audience can be expected to know well such abbreviations. I would even say that any abbreviation that can be found in any normal general dictionary of the language need not be explained; the reader can look it up if needed, just as he can look up words he is unfamiliar with. However, this might go too far if you are formally obliged to conformance to WCAG 2.0. After all, they even have an example like <abbr title="pound">lb.<abbr> (markup error in the original).
The example deals with a site intended both for specialists (doctors of medicine) and for general audience (patients). The example is not clear at all, and no actual example is linked to. So it should be considered only as an idea of what might be done, rather than a specific requirement on medical sites. Creating such a dual-use site is major challenge, and explaining abbreviations is just a small part of it. But if you are creating such a site, then a single glossary that has first a simple explanation for general audience, then a detailed professorial explanation, would be appear to be an equally good approach, if not better (provided that the presentation is adequate so that a patient realizes that the short explanation is intended for him and the longer one is for experts).