WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: strong vs. bold questions | Cite and Quotations also?

for

From: Holly Marie
Date: Mar 10, 2002 4:51PM

From: "Shirley Kaiser, SKDesigns"

> Hi,
>
> On another list (webdesign-L <http://www.webdesign-l.com/>;) the
question
> came up about using <strong> vs. <b> and why and when. I thought I'd
ask
> this here, too.
>
> The Accessibility Guidelines
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#text-emphasis>; recommend
using
> <strong> since it's structural markup rather than <b> since it's
> presentational markup. A couple of people have suggested that they may
only
> want to have the presentational markup and thus use the <b> tag for
those
> rather than <strong>. And they do so intentionally so that the words
within
> <b> aren't stressed in a voice reader.
>
> So, that makes sense to me -- as long as this is done so for a
specific,
> educated reason rather than just not knowing any different. And of
course,
> the comments were made about not using <b> in place of header tags,
etc.
> The discussion was specifically for the best ways of markup for
visually
> emphasizing phrases or certain words within some content (keyword
here --
> visually emphasizing).
>
> My other thought here was that if someone's doing that for visual
> emphasize, wouldn't it be fine to also allow for structural emphasis
for
> the benefit of the screen readers? Well, having a real-life example or
> examples would be ideal, so that was my next question to the list that
I
> wrote just before this one to you here (although we were really just
> talking theoretically, too).
>
> There will undoubtedly always be exceptions to the rule here, and it's
an
> interesting discussion. I'm mentioning it here, too, since this list
is
> specifically for accessibility issues, and I'm hoping for further
insight
> on this.
>

This has always been a puzzle to me, because I felt both were very
similar in meaning and also both were visually emphasized. I thought if
one wants to emphasize the text in any format that bolding it either way
would be acceptable.

When delivered in a lynx reader do both get bolded, equally? Print
versions?
A case I have seen where one may bold inside a style on an element tag
for presentation, and if styles are off this will not get displayed,
might be missing that point that it will not be bolded in text only and
or other media delivery?

There is an interesting piece regarding bold vs emphasis from NCSA,
here:
Character Formatting: Logical Versus Physical Styles
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/General/Internet/WWW/HTMLPrimerP2.html

EM and Strong are considered Logical styles, where....
B and I are considered Physical or presentational? styles...

At one time, I actually thought the W3C was contemplating the
deprecation of both B and I, and having designer/developers switch over
to using EM and Strong.

On most software- B seems to be the winner, maybe because it makes for
smaller ICONs, and also I seems to be used for Itallics instead of EM
for emphasis, which is opposite to that thought, in both Desktop
Publishing Programs and many graphics and font generating software. So
this is rather confusing and I always thought they were similar in
nature.


Acronym works well in NN, and when used and a title attribute expanding
for definition, a hover will show a question mark and the information. I
imagine a screen reader/speaker may also deliver that information? Are
we however to use ABBR for Acronyms and abbreviations?

One other question regarding CITE and Blockquote, are the title
attributes to these citings or quotations recommened to be inside the
corresponding tags.... or... isnt it necessary to also provide the
visual citations for those that do not access or read the attributes, in
the regular context following such content? {in other words if we bury
the cite or title citings in these tags, how will a visual audience know
where these quotes come from, and what happens when a page is printed,
the cites are lost?]


holly




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