- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:31:34 +0200
On Jan 9, 2007, at 23:29, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> My conclusion is that semantic markup has failed in this case. > > Semantic markup hasn't barely been tested in this case. For the most > part, users have been force-fed broken markup by deceptive user > interfaces. Sure. But is it realistic to expect this to change? What expected payoff is there for tool vendors for providing a non-deceptive UI for <em> and <strong>? > An actual test would have been to provide people with a widespread > interface that accurately reported that they were emphasizing rather > than italicizing. Part of the overall "test" is that such UIs haven't been launched with success in the last 14 years. >> <strong> and <b> are both primarily used to achieve >> bold rendering on the visual media. Regardless of which tags authors >> type or which tags their editor shortcuts produce, authors tend to >> think in terms of encoding italicizing and bolding instead of >> knowingly articulating their profound motivation for using italics or >> bold. > > Yes, it's a bad habit picked up from WYSIWIG word processing. If > people > were still habituated to typewriters you'd be insisting on the > intrinsic > utility of <u>. ;) More to the point, there is utility in being able to typeset a word or two differently in a paragraph. In theory, that's <em>. But in practice the choice between <em> and <strong> is motivated by the default visual rendering. Therefore, the situation is that there are two "semantic" elements for making a piece of text different: <em> and <strong>. The choice depends on the preferred default visual rendering: italic vs. bold. In practice this isn't any different from saying that the semantics of <i> and <b> are to set text differently with default visual renderings being italics and bold. >> Even those who have heard about the theoretical reasons for >> using <em> and <strong> > > [snip] > >> <em>, <strong>, <i> and <b> have all been in HTML for over a decade. >> I think that?s long enough to see what happens in the wild. I >> think it >> is time to give up and admit that there are two pairs of visually- >> oriented synonyms instead of putting more time, effort, money, blog >> posts, spec examples and discussion threads into educating people >> about subtle differences in the hope that important benefits will be >> realized once people use these elements the ?right? way. > > If we accepted that only a few people have heard about the theoretical > advantages of em and strong, wouldn't that suggest that the web > standards community has not done enough communicating, not that > communication has been understood but ineffective because its > prescriptions are somehow impractical? Perhaps, but what's the payoff of vehemently communicating more about this? Is it worth it? Would there be a different way to get the same payoff? > There are consequences to using <i> and <b> instead of <em> and > <strong>. Being ambiguous, <i> and <b> are insufficient hooks for > speech > CSS styling by the author, at least not without additional classes.) <em> and <i> are exactly as stylable. <strong> and <b> are also equally stylable. > Because they are so ambiguous, talking UAs will have to announce those > elements as "italic" and "bold" rather than applying any specific > aural > styling such as a different rate or pitch of speech. Because > announcements slow down reading speed much more than voice > alterations, > it is likely that talking agent users will turn them off. Which means > their web experience will be ultimately degraded. When an author presses command-i, he may not even know what markup is generated. The choice between <i> and <b> vs. <em> and <strong> is pretty much up to chance. This means that in *practice* <em> and <strong> are, on the real Web out there, about exactly as ambiguous as <i> and <b>. Since voice browsers aren't truly able to extract significance out of the choice of <em> vs. <i> (as the choice of element is largely up to chance), I conclude that reading them differently from each other isn't a particularly useful idea. If <i> and <b> have been implemented in an annoying way for the aural media, isn't the conclusion that it would even be rational for WYSIWYG tool vendors to use <em> and <strong> for italics and bold to avoid annoyances on the aural media? (Moreover, as currently defined, <em> and <strong> have more versatile content models in XHTML5, which means tool vendors would have an additional incentive to emit those elements.) >> I think using span with a style attribute is a bad idea in this case. >> Italicizing a word or two in a paragraph is not incidental style that >> could easily be considered optional. > > Surely it /is/ an incidental style, since authors, publication houses, > and style guides vary in their preferences about when to italicize. > Surely it is the distinctions between foreign and native languages, > between emphasis and non-emphasis, between titles and non-titles, > and so > forth, that are non-incidental, and that italicization imperfectly > reflects. The typography is not the message; it is only its shadow. Granted, but italics and bold are more sticky properties of the text than e.g. font family, font size or column width, so it is a mistake to treat all style properties as being equally incidental and expendable. >> It is a more essential part of >> the text that should be preserved when the content is formatted for a >> different display environment possibly with a different font. > > How would a different font conflict with its italicization? It wouldn't. My point was that italic and bold are stickier or closer to being part of content than the font. > Did you mean in a UA like Lynx that doesn't support CSS? No, but Lynx supports the point that <i> and <b> are different from other text foremost and italic and bold if possible. The copy of Lynx available to me renders <i>, <b>, <em> and <strong> all in the same way but differently from normal paragraph text. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 00:31:34 UTC