- 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
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 UTC