W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: italic fonts

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 04:56:59 -0700
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
To: "FOX, Jake" <FOXJ@NORWICH-UNION.CO.UK>
Message-Id: <5B45C0BE-F8BD-11D7-A1A9-000A958826AA@sidar.org>

I would tend to avoid them, because in most cases they are harder to 
read. Users who don't see perfectly (those with glasses, or who could 
benefit from them, not those with screen magnifiers) will find that 
italics slow them down.

It occurs to me to ask if people who don't read well to start with 
(other than from a vision problem) find italics harder. Anyone know?

So my advice would be go with bolding if you need emphasis. There are a 
couple of cases where italics is the commonly accepted way to identify 
things - one is short phrases in another language - and it may make 
more sense to stick with the conventions. But don't use italics without 
a good reason...

cheers

Chaals

On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 04:44 US/Pacific, FOX, Jake wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Does anyone know where use of italic fonts stands from an accessibility
> perspective?
>
> should they be entirely avoided and bold or bullets be used to pull out
> information?
>
> Users viewing sites with italic fonts may have trouble if they are 
> using
> assistive technology such as zoom tools and screen resizers?
>
> Be interested to see what you guys think.
>
> Jake.
>
--
Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 07:57:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:11 GMT