- 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>
> -----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