E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: Bold Italics

Number of posts in this thread: 18 (In chronological order)

From: Bevi Chagnon
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2012 2:22PM
Subject: Bold Italics
No previous message | Next message →

I have a client that needs to use both bold and italics on a section of text
that will be used on webpages.

Bold = and Italics =, but what is recommended for bold+italics
on that text?

--Bevi Chagnon

-

Bevi Chagnon, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

PubCom - Trainers, consultants, designers, and developers

Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and Federal Section 508 Accessibility

-

* It's our 30th Year! *

From: Guillermo Alzuru
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2012 2:27PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

Why not text ? Is there anything wrong with using both?

Guillermo
Guillermo Alzuru
Web Instructional Development
University of Georgia
Center for Continuing Education #189B
http://webiduga.com

From: Bevi Chagnon
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2012 3:06PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

If we were coding a website from scratch, that would probably work. But I'm
not sure how screen readers would interpret both and around
some text.

However, this is a Word document that must be 508-compliant and will
eventually be converted to XML, HTML and a PDF.
Word has character styles and <emphasis> and you can't apply both,
only one.

--Bevi
-----------------------------------------------------
Bevi Chagnon | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
PubCom - Trainers, consultants, designers, and developers
Print | Web | Acrobat | XML | eBooks | Section 508
-----------------------------------------------------
Classes: www.PubCom.com/classes
Publishing Blog: www.pubcom.com/blog
Book Bargains: http://www.amazon.com/shops/A387ZDTNPHKDN7
-----------------------------------------------------
*** It's our 31st Year! ***

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2012 10:36PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

2012-09-26 0:06, Bevi Chagnon wrote:

[about text]

> If we were coding a website from scratch, that would probably work. But I'm
> not sure how screen readers would interpret both and around
> some text.

If the starting point is that the client "needs to use both bold and
italics" and this apparently means using them both for some piece of
text, then safest way to achieve that is to use text and
to make the best effort to ensure that the font being used has a bold
italic typeface.

Many people say that one should use "logical" or "semantic" markup
 and instead of and , which is somewhat paradoxical,
since the meaning of and has been fairly well defined (HTML5 is
trying to obscure this), whereas and have never been
defined satisfactorily. "Strong emphasis" and "emphasis" don't really
say what the meanings are.

If you expect that screen readers do something with and , or with
 and , then the way they treat such markup when nested will
inevitably depend on the primary methods. If they use a different
speaker (like male vs. female) for and/or and a different
volume for and/or , then they will obviously just use both in
the nested case. If they use just different levels of volume, then the
effect could be cumulative, or it could (more probably) be just the same
as for or alone. But this is probably not very relevant.
The effect, if any, will hardly be distinguishable from that of or
.

> However, this is a Word document that must be 508-compliant

I wonder what 508 rules apply to Word documents. Usually "508" refers to
§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications,
which more or less implies that the information is in HTML format.
Although § 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems might be
interpreted as applying to Word documents (can they be seen as "software
applications"?), I wonder if any of rules set requirements on Word
documents.

> and will
> eventually be converted to XML, HTML and a PDF.

The rules that apply to the converted result may be anticipated when
preparing the original document and when carrying out the conversion
process, but this does not mean that specific requirements on the
original document can be deduced.

> Word has character styles and <emphasis> and you can't apply both,
> only one.

I don't see how character styles set a limitation here. Using styles in
Word is a good principle, but I can't see how it would be a 508
requirement. You can use simply bold and italic formatting, or you can
define a style of your own that makes text bold italic. And at least in
Word 2007, there is a predefined "Intense emphasis" style that is set to
be bold and italic (and in a special color).

Yucca

From: Bevi Chagnon
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2012 11:36PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

<< I wonder what 508 rules apply to Word documents. Usually "508" refers to
§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications,
which more or less implies that the information is in HTML format. >>

That's an out-of-date view. A key facet of the proposed 508 Refresh is to
expand the regs to cover all ICT, information & communication technology.
See: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm#_Toc310327562

E201.1 Scope. ICT that is procured, developed, maintained, or used by
agencies shall conform to these requirements.
And
E205.1 Official Agency Communications. Regardless of the medium or the
method of transmission and storage, electronic content that communicates
official agency business, as determined by the agency mission, to a federal
employee or a member of the public...

Granted, the current regs are murky on whether Word documents must be
accessible, however, most agencies now require accessible Word, PowerPoint,
spreadsheets, and PDFs, months before the new regs will come into force.
Wise strategy on their part.

<< The rules that apply to the converted result may be anticipated when
preparing the original document and when carrying out the conversion
process, but this does not mean that specific requirements on the original
document can be deduced. >>

I disagree. Not only can I deduce the specific requirements of the original
document, I MUST deduce and control them. How the source document is styled,
formatted, and structured is essential to convert it to XML and use it to
generate websites and other documents or have it stored in a central content
management system (CMS). It's also critical when either the Word or XML is
imported into an automated layout in desktop publishing software. And it
sure helps when it's converted directly to HTML, too.

Paragraph and character styles make all this conversion work as efficiently
as possible. Bold and italics in a Word document are often lost in the
conversion, but the Strong and Emphasis character styles make it through the
conversion just fine.

Hence, why we're looking for a solution on Strong+Emphasis character style.

--Bevi

Bevi Chagnon, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
PubCom Trainers, consultants, designers, and developers
Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and Federal Section 508 Accessibility

* It's our 30th Year! *

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2012 11:56PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

2012-09-26 8:36, Bevi Chagnon wrote:

> A key facet of the proposed 508 Refresh is to
> expand the regs to cover all ICT, information & communication technology.

So when you wrote that "this is a Word document that must be
508-compliant", you were apparently referring to some assumed future 508
rules (though I don't see which clauses in the draft you are referring to).

> << The rules that apply to the converted result may be anticipated when
> preparing the original document and when carrying out the conversion
> process, but this does not mean that specific requirements on the original
> document can be deduced. >>
>
> I disagree. Not only can I deduce the specific requirements of the original
> document, I MUST deduce and control them.

"MUST" as per some setup of your processes, but not as something
derivable from the regulations.

> Paragraph and character styles make all this conversion work as efficiently
> as possible.

Undoubtedly. But when the starting point is that something is required
to be bold italic, then things are specified in terms of rendering, not
in a manner suitable for use of styles.

> Bold and italics in a Word document are often lost in the
> conversion, but the Strong and Emphasis character styles make it through the
> conversion just fine.

It depends on the conversion.

> Hence, why we're looking for a solution on Strong+Emphasis character style.

As you wrote, you cannot use two character styles on the same piece of
text. You can just use one style that has the desired characteristics,
possibly formed by adding the features of one style when setting up a
style based on the other style.

So why don't you just define such a style or, if available in your
version of Word and you find it acceptable, use the predefined "Intense
emphasis" style?

Yucca

From: Chris.Chandler
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2012 11:57PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

What information is conveyed to a sighted reader by the use of both bold and italic?

Typically, I don't think it's more specific than "this has emphasis, but is different than those things that are only bold or only italic."

Do they also require bold text and also italic text? Just how many nuanced layers of meaning does anyone think is possible with type?

-cc

Sent from a mobile device.

On Sep 25, 2012, at 1:22 PM, "Bevi Chagnon" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I have a client that needs to use both bold and italics on a section of text
> that will be used on webpages.
>
> Bold = and Italics =, but what is recommended for bold+italics
> on that text?
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
> -
>
> Bevi Chagnon, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> PubCom - Trainers, consultants, designers, and developers
>
> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and Federal Section 508 Accessibility
>
> -
>
> * It's our 30th Year! *
>
>
>
> > >

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 12:11AM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

2012-09-26 8:57, Chris.Chandler wrote:

> What information is conveyed to a sighted reader by the use of both bold and italic?

It depends on the context and on the reader.

> Typically, I don't think it's more specific than "this has emphasis, but is different
> than those things that are only bold or only italic."

Maybe typically, but "emphasis" is a very vague word. And the "but"
clause does not really apply when there is no bold without italic and no
italic without bold in sight. In lack of such contrasts, bold italic
looks just emphatic, whatever that might mean.

But it really depends. For example, in mathematical notations, bold
italic is conventionally used for some entities such a variables
denoting vectors. There is no emphasis implied.

Yucca

From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 8:45AM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

For as long as I've known, JAWS does not make any differentiation for bold or italics text by default, at least on web pages. Perhaps Word is different? I did a little poking around on the Freedom Scientific website, and found a handy (not!) 20 step process for customizing the speech sounds schemes so it will speak bold in a deeper voice. Has anybody on this list done this, or know of someone who has?

I agree with Chris that the key question is "why" it has to be bold and italic for sighted users. If it's because it's in another language or included in a glossary or has some other necessary semantic value, you will need to find a way of presenting that value other than use of italics and/or bold alone. Otherwise - in practical terms - it doesn't matter to a screen reader user.

Sarah E. Bourne
Director of Assistive Technology &
Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
Information Technology Division
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/itd

From: Karen Mardahl
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 9:13AM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

This article taught me that bold and italic, regardless of markup choice,
was ignored by screen readers:
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2008/02/screen-readers-lack-emphasis/
However, the article is from 2008. Maybe things have changed since then.

Like Chris and Sarah, I'd question what the purpose of bold plus italic is.
That is what I would worry about first of all. Should it be a heading
instead? Should it highlight something that should be in a list? I'd look
at the content and wonder what was to be conveyed to the reader. That's
what we technical writers do. (smile)

Regards, Karen Mardahl

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Bourne, Sarah (ITD) <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> For as long as I've known, JAWS does not make any differentiation for bold
> or italics text by default, at least on web pages. Perhaps Word is
> different? I did a little poking around on the Freedom Scientific website,
> and found a handy (not!) 20 step process for customizing the speech sounds
> schemes so it will speak bold in a deeper voice. Has anybody on this list
> done this, or know of someone who has?
>
> I agree with Chris that the key question is "why" it has to be bold and
> italic for sighted users. If it's because it's in another language or
> included in a glossary or has some other necessary semantic value, you will
> need to find a way of presenting that value other than use of italics
> and/or bold alone. Otherwise - in practical terms - it doesn't matter to a
> screen reader user.
>
> Sarah E. Bourne
> Director of Assistive Technology &
> Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
> Information Technology Division
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> 1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
> 617-626-4502
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://www.mass.gov/itd
>
> > > >

From: John E Brandt
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 1:39PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

Two more cents...

I remember this being discussed here in the last year or so when "the new
HTML5" standards included all of the attributes and . I
wrote a blog about it and how the whole thing was very confusing. In that
blog I noted, " ...I can even remember a time when there was serious talk
that these tags would eventually be used by screen reader software (and all
text to speech applications) in a way that would actually "express" the
emphasis in the aural output. But that technological advancement has not
happened (yet)." (My blog entry
http://jebswebs.net/blog/2011/06/html5-i-b-em-strong-whats-the-scoop/ )

In my readings at the time I noticed that there were passionate debates both
ways as to whether these "typographical features" had any semantic
qualities. I won't go there now.

Judging from the comments here and the article provided by Karen, I think
that not a whole lot has changed so that it is safe to assume the bolds and
italics are generally ignored by AT. So, I agree with Sarah on this.

For accessibility purposed it would be more important to ensure the digital
document in question was using appropriate headings which is probably the
number one weakness of most digital documents.

~j

John E. Brandt
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA

From: David Ashleydale
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 2:00PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

I remember being surprised to learn that JAWS doesn't alert users when it
comes across emphasized text by default. Sentences can have very different
meanings depending on what words are emphasized. I like this example from
changingminds.org:

- Mary had a little lamb. (Mary, not Tom, had the lamb.)
- Mary had a little lamb. (She had it once, but she does not
have it now.)
- Mary had a little lamb. (She had one, not two, and not "the"
lamb.)
- Mary had a little lamb. (The lamb was little, not big.)
- Mary had a little lamb. (It was a lamb, not a dog.)

As a content author, I would have hoped that this kind of nuance would be
conveyed to AT users. But apparently, it's not.

As to the original poster's question, I don't see why a certain word or
phrase would need to be doubly emphasized with both italics and bold. The
only case where I could see doing this would be if I were going for a
particular visual style that had nothing to do with semantics. For example,
I might want to emphasize the letter "I" in a sentence using italics, but
because it's such a small character, maybe I would consider bolding it,
too, just to make it stand out more, visually.

David Ashleydale

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 2:39PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm the original poster, so let me explain the situation my client is in.

An entire phrase will be in bold to emphasize it from the rest of the body
text and it will use the character style in MS Word.
Within the phrase is a book title that grammatically needs to be in
italics/emphasis.

However, when we apply <emphasis> to the book title that already has
 applied (this is Word styles, not HTML code), the is
removed for the book title and only <emphasis> is left. With Word styles,
it's either / or: either or <emphasis>, not both.

This might not be a problem for screen readers because they'll use voice #1
for the first part with , voice #2 for the <emphasis> book title,
and revert back to voice #1 for the rest of the text and the user
will hear the difference between the 3 sections/

But this content is not just for accessibility: the same content is being
used for print publishing, web publishing, and a centralized XML-based
database. The book title needs to have both and <emphasis> applied
in Word (which is where the content is created), not either or
<emphasis>.

So to rephrase my original question:
Is there a defined tag for both + <emphasis> that is compliant with
WCAG 2.0? If so, does it have a matching character style in Word?

This doesn't look hopeful, given that screen readers don't even address
regular and <emphasis> very well!

- Bevi Chagnon

- PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, and Developers.
- Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
Accessibility.
- It's our 31st year!

From: David Ashleydale
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 3:01PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

If you don't mind, I'd like to learn a little more about how to apply
 and <emphasis> word styles to text in MS Word.

Can you explain how to do that, or give me a URL where I could read more?

Thanks,
David Ashleydale

From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 3:13PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> I remember being surprised to learn that JAWS doesn't alert users when it
> comes across emphasized text by default.

This has been addressed on this list numerous times for at least a
decade, but it does come as a bit of a surprise because this is basic,
15-year-old HTML semantics that should be very simple to implement in
screen readers.

> As to the original poster's question, I don't see why a certain word or
> phrase would need to be doubly emphasized with both italics and bold.

In (X)HTML < 5, if an element has , it's strongly emphasized
whether it has or not. Hello! would be no
different semantically than Hello!.

The HTML5 specification, however, allow nested and to
convey increased emphasis. The example I use is:

Wow! That is really, REALLY
impressive!

If don't know how screen readers would convey this, except perhaps
through volume (but who likes being yelled at?). But that problem is
not really a present concern - getting basic support for *any* level
of emphasis would be a nice start.

Jared

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Sep 26 2012 5:19PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

I tested 5 sscreen readers for, among other things, the handling of
special formats in Word documents in 2011, only one of them announced
formatting by default (think it was System Access,but don't have the
repot to hand). In a web browser they never announce special formats,
with the caviat that I have not tried the Jaws 14 beta, and I have not
tried Windows Eyes (was not able to do so as part of said tests).
If anyone´s interested in a link to this report, which covers a lot of
screen reader functionality with Skype, web browsing, word, instant
messaging etc, just email me off list or I can post the url here
tomorrow (we´ve been changing around our website so the article is
temporary not on there).
Thanks
-Birkir

On 9/26/12, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM, David Ashleydale wrote:
>> I remember being surprised to learn that JAWS doesn't alert users when it
>> comes across emphasized text by default.
>
> This has been addressed on this list numerous times for at least a
> decade, but it does come as a bit of a surprise because this is basic,
> 15-year-old HTML semantics that should be very simple to implement in
> screen readers.
>
>> As to the original poster's question, I don't see why a certain word or
>> phrase would need to be doubly emphasized with both italics and bold.
>
> In (X)HTML < 5, if an element has , it's strongly emphasized
> whether it has or not. Hello! would be no
> different semantically than Hello!.
>
> The HTML5 specification, however, allow nested and to
> convey increased emphasis. The example I use is:
>
> Wow! That is really, REALLY
> impressive!
>
> If don't know how screen readers would convey this, except perhaps
> through volume (but who likes being yelled at?). But that problem is
> not really a present concern - getting basic support for *any* level
> of emphasis would be a nice start.
>
> Jared
> > > >

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Mon, Oct 01 2012 2:45PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | Next message →

I don't know of a screen reader that will identify if text has a strong or emphasis tag applied to it.

However, most all screen readers are able to identify if text is bolded or italicized. How they do that can differ between screen readers and even by user preference.

One thing to keep in mind though is that I don't think any screen reader automatically identifies bolded or italicized text by default. I think in just about every case, the user either needs to use keyboard commands to ask for that information or make changes to the screen reader's default settings.

So, I suspect technically bolded or italicized text is accessible, while text styled as strong or emphasized is not.

As far as Word styles go, I believe it is only possible to apply a single style to text. If you want to use a style to both bold and emphasize text, you'll either need to alter an existing style or create a new style. If someone is just reading the document in Word, I would suggest giving it a new meaningful style name. For example, JAWS will say the name of an applied style if that feature is turned on--which should give the user the necessary information.
Though if you are porting the contents of the Word document to other formats, you might have to do something to ensure that information translates across to the other formats.

Another option might be to use additional typographical conventions to help with identifying text. For example, sometimes I will both italicize and place double quotes around an article title if it appears in a paragraph.

I hope some of this information helps.

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Mon, Oct 01 2012 3:08PM
Subject: Re: Bold Italics
← Previous message | No next message

Well I have seen a word like "Caution" or "WARNING" in a different
eye-catching color as a prefix for a sentence or two of text on a Web
page I was testing a while ago.
This will not fail as 'use of color alone' issue ... as it is in text.
But it helps visual identification. Screen reader users are at a disadvantage.
Likewise, content that is bold or in italics or tagged as em or strong
helps the sighted user but ordinarily does not help the screen reader
user... as Tim pointed out.
Again it would be good if AT would render it differently or the screen
reader could use a quick-nav feature to move to such text.
Screen reader makers should include this in their list of to-do things.
Content marked up as EM or STRONG becomes an accessibility issue if it
is used for section headings ... these should be marked up with an
h<n> tag and maybe CSS as needed.
Any different take?
Sailesh Panchang

On 10/1/12, Tim Harshbarger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I don't know of a screen reader that will identify if text has a strong or
> emphasis tag applied to it.
>
> However, most all screen readers are able to identify if text is bolded or
> italicized. How they do that can differ between screen readers and even by
> user preference.
>
> One thing to keep in mind though is that I don't think any screen reader
> automatically identifies bolded or italicized text by default. I think in
> just about every case, the user either needs to use keyboard commands to ask
> for that information or make changes to the screen reader's default
> settings.
>
> So, I suspect technically bolded or italicized text is accessible, while
> text styled as strong or emphasized is not.
>
> As far as Word styles go, I believe it is only possible to apply a single
> style to text. If you want to use a style to both bold and emphasize text,
> you'll either need to alter an existing style or create a new style. If
> someone is just reading the document in Word, I would suggest giving it a
> new meaningful style name. For example, JAWS will say the name of an
> applied style if that feature is turned on--which should give the user the
> necessary information.
> Though if you are porting the contents of the Word document to other
> formats, you might have to do something to ensure that information
> translates across to the other formats.
>
> Another option might be to use additional typographical conventions to help
> with identifying text. For example, sometimes I will both italicize and
> place double quotes around an article title if it appears in a paragraph.
>
> I hope some of this information helps.
>
>