WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: <strong> vs <em>

for

From: Hunt, Jan
Date: Feb 13, 2007 1:20PM

Tim wrote -
"Use strong and em" is such a mantra, though. It was WCAG 1, if I
recall correctly, that made the recommendation. It wouldn't be the
first time that the w3c and the real world were, let's say, not
entirely close :p

And Jan says -
Thanks, what I gather here is that all the talk about using <strong> and
<em> because screen readers will read that text differently was a theory
that never got put into action.

I felt kind of stupid telling folks in my department to use <strong> and
<em> instead of <b> or <i> (where appropriate) so the screen readers
would place inflection on that text, only to find out that screen
readers ignore <strong> <em> <b> and <i>. One day, while listening to a
page, it dawned on me that there was no inflection created by using any
of those tags.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Beadle [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:30 AM
To: <EMAIL REMOVED> ; WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] <strong> vs <em>

On 12/02/07, Rebecca Ballard < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> I can't speak about HomePage Reader, but by default, the jaws settings
for
> Internet Explorer (and probably Firefox as well as other HTML
documents) is
> to not pick up changes in font etc. It would really get in the way I
have to
> say. Screen reader users are going to get emphasis from the words
> themselves. My advice would be, don't get hung up about it for screen
reader
> users.

Interesting. That runs counter to most advice I've ever read on the
whole <em>/<i>, <strong>/<b> issue.

I don't just bluntly replace all instances of <i> with <em>, as
emphasis isn't always what italicisation is trying to achieve. For
instance I use the <cite> element to mark up names of publications or
quoted authors/speakers, and this has wider semantic benefits.

"Use strong and em" is such a mantra, though. It was WCAG 1, if I
recall correctly, that made the recommendation. It wouldn't be the
first time that the w3c and the real world were, let's say, not
entirely close :p

Tim