Usability Brain Teaser!

[WebSavvy]

According to Bobby, when using acronyms (e.g., FAQ, WWW, TOS) the correct way to do this would be;

<ACRONYM title="Frequently Asked Questions">FAQ</ACRONYM>
<ACRONYM title="World Wide Web">WWW</ACRONYM>
<ACRONYM title="Terms of Service">TOS</ACRONYM>

That's all fine and good. No problem. However, what if the "WWW" or "FAQ" or "TOS" needs to be a link?

Example, many people put FAQ and TOS in their page footer. Now, for WAI it has to use the proper <ACRONYM></ACRONYM> format in order to validate.

Stick a link in there and it doesn't validate in Bobby nor does it validate in W3C.

This is a Usability Brain Teaser. Does anyone know the correct way to do this?

Also, one other thing I've discovered;

Using W3C the following validates to web standards:

<dl>
<dt><a title="page 1" href="/page1.html">Page 1</a></dt>
<dt><a title="page 2" href="/page2.html">Page 2</a></dt>
</dl>

However, Bobby tells you to "use more than white space to separate links" ... blah, blah, blah.

I don't get it. Doesn't Bobby "see" the end tags for </a> and </dt> ???

Use the same format as above and substitute <dl><dt> with <ul><li> and Bobby "understands" the </a> ... BUT <dl><dt> confuse Bobby and Bobby cannot see the "</a>" ...

Anyone know why this is?

It just makes it a pain to have to use lists when you need to use a definition list in order for proper information formatting.

<ACRONYM title="Thanks in Advance">T.I.A</ACRONYM>

[WebSavvy]

OK, this validates;

<acronym title="World Wide Web"><a href="/www.html">WWW</a></acronym>

Now, to try and figure out why issue #2 exists.

[ihelpyou]

The person above should be banned for talking to herself.






oh, wrong thread. :rolleyes: