- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Steve Faulkner > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Maciej, > > > > I think that warning is fine, except that it is visually emphasised, > but not > > in the mark-up. suggest the most robust way to empahsise > this information is > > to provide a heading for it. > > Isn't it more semantically correct to use the <em> element? If not, is > the <em> element failing to fulfill its intended purpose and should be > removed? <em>, as an inline element serves its purpose well, but as the current spec states, "The em element also isn't intended to convey importance". Given that this text *is* important, <em> is not the right choice. The "most robust" way is to make this warning its own block level content; marked as a heading it's higher up in the hierarchal tree, reflecting its importance to the overall document. Studies show that non-visual users generally navigate an html document using headings first, thus further solidifying this reasoning. (http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey/#headings) JF
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 08:33:06 UTC