WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: <strong> vs <em>

for

From: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Date: Feb 13, 2007 11:20AM

Penny Roberts wrote:
>
> (Seriously, there is a lot to be learnt from reading the arguments put
> forward on both sides.)

Penny, I would echo Patrick's suggestion of reviewing the WSG thread as
well, but the argument boils down to this:

<i> and <b> are presentational, but have no semantic meaning, whereas <em>
and <strong> have some implied semantic meaning, even if that meaning is
"weak".

The argument centers on the notion that if you are making some form of
visual presentational change to your text (by bolding it or italicizing it)
that you are implying some distinction (ergo semantic distinction) to the
text affected by that markup. The question then becomes "why", and "what"
exactly are you trying to indicate when you do this. There are other
mark-up elements (such as the oft referenced <cite>) that carry more
semantic weight, and can be styled via CSS to be bold, italic, and
sky-blue-pink if you so wish, but the <cite> element has a meaning, and <i>
does not.

Some argue that the use of the neutral <span> element can also be used to
add visual formatting <span class="italic">like this</span>, but then again
the question becomes "why" and "what" are you doing this for, and how do you
convey that similar inference and meaning to non-visual users.

The debate, like many, has no end.

Hope this helps.

JF