WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: <em> v. <i> and <strong> v. <b>

for

From: julian.rickards@ndm.gov.on.ca
Date: Sep 5, 2003 9:16AM

I too have been surprised by the deprecation lists: <font> is gone but <b>
and <i> are not, yet all three are presentational. However, <strong> and
<em> have a logical significance and would/should be interpretted by speech
readers with a different voice (of one sort or another) than <b> and <i>
which are only visual and speech readers would/should not read them any
different than unstyled text.

Does not FP have the option of inserting <strong> in place of <b> and <em>
for <i>?

Jules

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeb [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:56 AM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: <em> v. <i> and <strong> v. <b>
>
>
> Earlier in August there was an interesting discussion
> regarding the "bold"
> and "italics" issue. I just re-read the archives and still
> have questions.
>
> In reading my HTML 4 Bible, it notes that although <B> and
> <i> have not been
> deprecated, CSS is recommended. There is no similar statement
> for <strong>
> and <em>. However, pretty much all browsers render <b> and
> <strong> exactly
> the same way (ditto with <i> and <em>). Someone in the
> archive noted that
> "all browsers" can handle <B> while a number of browsers
> still have problems
> with CSS.
>
> That discussion got into aural style sheets and issues
> related to how to do
> the CSS code. It never answered my concern...
>
> So, my question is simply, what difference does it make - if
> you use <b> and
> <i>? From my reading, it is not deprecated, it doesn't
> apparently upset any
> AT devices, both can have their attributed changed with CSS content.
>
> My reason for asking is that some accessibility validators
> programs are now
> citing the use of <B> and <I> with a "warning" statement.
> Because there may
> be many such "errors" it stops the validation process because
> some arbitrary
> maximum number of errors has been reached.
>
> I use FrontPage 2002 as my authoring package and understand
> that there are a
> number of things I have to do to make a standard FP file
> accessible (most of
> which I have mastered), but I am not happy with the prospect
> of having to go
> back and change all of my <B>'s to <strong>s, just to placate
> some "silly
> interpretation." So is it a "silly interpretation" or a valid
> concern, and
> can someone explain why these distinctions are important?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> jeb
>
> John E. Brandt
> Augusta, ME 04330
>
> <EMAIL REMOVED> <mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> www.jebswebs.com <http://www.jebswebs.com>;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>


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