People use abbreviations, thinking to save time. This belief is questionable. By way of example, consider the following versions of one and the same sentence:
The time saved by the author/typist in 1. compared to 2. is approximately 2 seconds, depending on typing skill. It may be only 1.5 seconds, or it may be 3. Now suppose this sentence needs to be read by 100 individuals. The following situations may apply:
The estimations of consumed extra time in the last three situations are conservative. In almost all possible combinations and proportions in which these situations can occur, the total (combined) loss of time on the side of the readers is very much greater than the amount of time saved by the author/typist. For clarity, even if processing a particular abbreviation takes a mere .1 seconds extra, then for 100 readers that means 10 seconds in total, which is more than the time saved by the typist. With multiple abbreviations in a text, and greater numbers of readers, the difference only becomes worse. In other words, the use of abbreviations is egoistic and unethical; it is the way of parasites, of leeches. It amounts to stealing much time from many others in order to save oneself a little time. Once one has understood this, it becomes clear that the ethical, altruistic way to go about it is to avoid abbreviations, with the possible exception of the one or two that with certainty are read and understood as words in themselves by everyone.
It is interesting to consider why virtually no one arrives at the above conclusion by oneself. Clearly, people who use abbreviations are assuming their own mind contents in all readers; their self-obvious, tacit, unaware assumption is if I know this abbreviation, then everyone knows it. Thus they are not aware of the loss of time they are causing. Their associative horizon is too narrow to realize that an abbreviation that is obvious to them may stump the reader. They are unable to imagine themselves in the position of the reader.
It is the same phenomenon that leads evil people to be suspicious and on guard — ill doers are ill deemers — and good people to be naive, to assume their own ethicality in all others. Variants thereof are, for instance, to overlook the fact that answering questions may take more time than asking them (some time ago a not-so-clever person sent me a long message full of questions, and when I explained that answering those would cost me days he said, "no, it should take you no more than half an hour, because it took me only half an hour to write them down"), or to work for months or years on a complex system and subsequently present it to others, expecting it to be understood on sight without any significant explanation or study. The use of technical terms or esoteric words is another example. Or what to think of the schizophrenic who asks his neighbour, "How do you deal with those little black men who live under the roof and tell you to kill yourself? I always just ignore them". The old saying One fool can ask more than a thousand wise men can answer fits the mood of these situations well. Typical for this phenomenon (unawarely assuming one's mind contents in all others) is that even when one explains to people that they are doing it, they will still not recognize they are doing it and deny.
Considering people's disinclination to avoid abbreviations by their own decision, and considering the potential gain in efficiency of communication if abbreviations were eliminated, a complete prohibition of abbreviations seems imperative.