WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: <em> v. <i> and <strong> v. <b>

for

From: jeb
Date: Sep 5, 2003 10:00AM

Thank you to all who have answered my questions (rather quickly I note!).

Unfortunately, I don't like your answers <grin>. I was thinking it was
merely a situation of search and replace all my <b>s with <strong>s - etc.
Now, I realize that I need to actually read all of this stuff and determine
if it is something that is merely presentational or something requiring
emphasis. Yuck!

To answer Julian's question, no, the current version of FrontPage always
renders the <b> and <i> - However, I just discovered something very
interesting. After I convert all of the <b>s to <strong> I can then "remove"
the bolding (same thing with the italics) using the appropriate button icon
on the tool bar. What is happening in the code is FP leaves in the <strong>
or <em> and simply adds a font-style element returning the text to "normal."
If I click the button again, it replaces the <strong> or <em>.

BTW, I checked on a page that a colleague of mine made using Dreamweaver and
his bolding is created with CSS. I'm guessing that that is an internal
feature of Dreamweaver. FP is coming out with a new version next month -
hopefully there will be some major improvements - or perhaps it is time to
make the switch to DW.

So, it looks like I have my work cut out for me. Thanks everyone!

jeb

John E. Brandt
Augusta, ME 04330

<EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
www.jebswebs.com <http://www.jebswebs.com>;




-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:09 AM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: RE: <em> v. <i> and <strong> v. <b>


I too have been surprised by the deprecation lists: <font> is gone but <b>
and <i> are not, yet all three are presentational. However, <strong> and
<em> have a logical significance and would/should be interpretted by speech
readers with a different voice (of one sort or another) than <b> and <i>
which are only visual and speech readers would/should not read them any
different than unstyled text.

Does not FP have the option of inserting <strong> in place of <b> and <em>
for <i>?

Jules

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeb [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:56 AM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: <em> v. <i> and <strong> v. <b>
>
>
> Earlier in August there was an interesting discussion
> regarding the "bold"
> and "italics" issue. I just re-read the archives and still
> have questions.
>
> In reading my HTML 4 Bible, it notes that although <B> and
> <i> have not been
> deprecated, CSS is recommended. There is no similar statement
> for <strong>
> and <em>. However, pretty much all browsers render <b> and
> <strong> exactly
> the same way (ditto with <i> and <em>). Someone in the
> archive noted that
> "all browsers" can handle <B> while a number of browsers
> still have problems
> with CSS.
>
> That discussion got into aural style sheets and issues
> related to how to do
> the CSS code. It never answered my concern...
>
> So, my question is simply, what difference does it make - if
> you use <b> and
> <i>? From my reading, it is not deprecated, it doesn't
> apparently upset any
> AT devices, both can have their attributed changed with CSS content.
>
> My reason for asking is that some accessibility validators
> programs are now
> citing the use of <B> and <I> with a "warning" statement.
> Because there may
> be many such "errors" it stops the validation process because
> some arbitrary
> maximum number of errors has been reached.
>
> I use FrontPage 2002 as my authoring package and understand
> that there are a
> number of things I have to do to make a standard FP file
> accessible (most of
> which I have mastered), but I am not happy with the prospect
> of having to go
> back and change all of my <B>'s to <strong>s, just to placate
> some "silly
> interpretation." So is it a "silly interpretation" or a valid
> concern, and
> can someone explain why these distinctions are important?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> jeb
>
> John E. Brandt
> Augusta, ME 04330
>
> <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> www.jebswebs.com <http://www.jebswebs.com>;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/




----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/