E-mail List Archives
Re: <strong> vs <em>
From: Hunt, Jan
Date: Feb 13, 2007 1:20PM
- Next message: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: vs "
- Previous message: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: Is Webaim site down?"
- Next message in Thread: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: vs "
- Previous message in Thread: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: vs "
- View all messages in this Thread
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.
- Next message: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: vs "
- Previous message: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: Is Webaim site down?"
- Next message in Thread: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: vs "
- Previous message in Thread: John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program: "Re: vs "
- View all messages in this Thread