Re: Bold vs Strong

You bet!

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 4:17 PM Vinil Peter <vinilpeter.wcag@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Katie,
>
> Thanks for the information and guidance.
>
> Regards,
> Vinil Peter, PMP
> On Aug 5, 2018, at 11:09 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Vinil,
>>
>> Please see WCAG 2 failure technique as rationale for using semantic
>> markup:  https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F2.html
>> F2: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to using changes in text
>> presentation to convey information without using the appropriate markup or
>> text
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 11:17 AM Vinil Peter < vinilpeter.wcag@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> I have been asked to provide my thoughts on a debate on the use of bold
>>> <b> and strong <strong> for one of my clients. The client's internal
>>> accessibility testing team marked all the instances where <b> was used as
>>> errors and recommended to change them to <strong> so that screen readers
>>> read out the text with added emphasis. This has brought their quality and
>>> compliance scores down drastically. The client's developers are unhappy
>>> about this and claim that they should not be marked down as there is no
>>> clear guideline or fine print that mandates use of <strong> over <b>.
>>> Moreover, W3C has not deprecated <b> yet and it's usage is still permitted.
>>> <b> has been in use since ages and asking to replace all bold text with
>>> strong is like declaring that  use of <b> should be banned henceforth.
>>>
>>> I am planning to give my recommendation to use <strong> in headers or
>>> functionality names etc. if the text is bold as per  design, while it is
>>> still fair to allow use of <b> for other bold text. The 'appropriate usage'
>>> of bold or strong is finally the designer's call as there is no clear
>>> guideline.
>>>
>>> Is my recommendation correct or am I missing something? What your
>>> thoughts and have you come across any such debate?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vinil Peter, PMP
>>>
>>