W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2013

RE: [RESEND] suggestion: modify <small> definition

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:03:15 +0000
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E72B230@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:53 AM
> 
> On 21/05/2013 14:26, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> > fair enough, so how about the following
> >
> > "The small element represents de-emphasised content"
> 
> That actually works for me, though I fear it will be the start of a lengthy meta-
> discussion (which, well, I already engaged in in my last two messages).

I like it, but I also think it should suggest against nesting in or around <strong> and <em>. Sort of heads off the meta discussion, which I think is a valid one.


> > On the topic of users who don't get the effect of smaller text:
> >
> > To my knowledge <small> is the same as <span> for screen reader users,
> > so in a sense they are advantaged as the visual de-emphasis is not
> > apparent
> 
> Sounds discriminatory to me ;)

As far as I know, AT doesn't do anything with <small>. Should any new language describe how AT should handle it (to your point about radio "small text," have screen readers speak it more quickly, in a different tone, and with clown horns)?

Or is that outside the scope of this group/discussion?

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 14:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:02 UTC