W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Cleaning House

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 18:14:32 +0200
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.trrdamkr64w2qv@id-c0020>

On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:12:46 +0200, John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>  
wrote:
> But if you can't *SEE* the bold, italic or underlined text, how do you
> convey that same cue/clue to the end consumer?  For the sighted user,
> presentational features are not bad, but for the non-sighted, pray tell,  
> how will you convey that same nuance?

I believe T.V. Raman actually has styling for <b> and <i> in his browser.  
(Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Users marking things up in bold and  
italic do mean something with it. It's just that you (the editor) can't  
determine what it is and therefore they are good elements to use. Using  
<strong> and <em> instead would likely be very wrong when the document  
mentions a lot of ship names, for instance.

<b> and <i> being "presentational" doesn't mean you can't convey that  
information in non-visual environments. Defining them like they are  
defined in the WHATWG HTML5 proposal might actually make the web a tad  
more accessible, who knows. (If research shows it doesn't, we should of  
course reflect that in the specification, etc.)


> So I will turn the tables - give me a good, realistic use-case where
> presenting nuanced information to some users, while excluding others, is
> "good".
>
> Sheesh...


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:14:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:10 GMT