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

Re: italic fonts

From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 16:00:54 +0100
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <oprwohbswau930jj@mail.icet.co.uk>

I certainly agree with Charles with regards to the use of the correct tags 
to mark up content in order to achieve the desired visual effect. However 
I would note that on smaller devices the screens and font rendering 
technology (such as cleartype on windows powered handheld devices) are 
really helping to make the finer points of typography render better.

Tom

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:56:47 -0700, Charles McCathieNevile 
<charles@sidar.org> wrote:

>
> I agree with Tom that italics aren't all terrible, and the point that 
> different levels of emphasis can be useful is a valid one, although in 
> many cases I don't think people use more than one level. It seems to me 
> that many of the cases that Jon listed are areas where there is specific 
> markup available - marking a span as being in another language that is 
> already a priority 1 requirement in WCAG, using markup like cite and 
> quote is there as priority 2, ...
>
> I have a small phone running a partial CSS implementation (Sony Ericsson 
> - I don't know what their browser is) but have found that italics on it 
> are like on medium-resolution screens - readable in large sizes (and I 
> have a zoom feature on the phone) but not as pretty as they are when 
> printed from true type.
>
> Which is why I use "avoid" rather than "don't". (Talking about when to 
> use a size less than the user default for body text, my answer is 
> "don't"...)
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 05:57 US/Pacific, Tom Croucher wrote:
>
>>
>> I am not sure that I agree with some of the assumptions used her. Not 
>> all italics are particularly detrimental to being able to read text. It 
>> entirely depends on the font. The reason for having strong and em is 
>> that they provide different roles. Strong gives more weight (visually 
>> and semantically) to a word, as oposed to em which is commonly used to 
>> mark out key points of information. This might seem a subtle 
>> distinction but it is important.
>>
>> My two pence,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:28:36 +0100, Scarlett Julian (ED) 
>> <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So my advice would be go with bolding if you need emphasis.
>>>
>>> Is there a case for doing away with <strong> altogether and having 
>>> <em> display in bold by default unless specified as different in the 
>>> css. It strikes me that the distinction, semantically, between <em> 
>>> and <strong> is becoming rather blurred.
>>>
>>> Just thinking aloud..
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be 
>>> disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not 
>>> the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your 
>>> email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot 
>>> accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this 
>>> message as it has been transmitted over a public network.  If you 
>>> suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please 
>>> tell us as soon as possible.
>>
>>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
> charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 11:01:00 GMT

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