- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:56:47 -0700
- To: tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I agree with Tom that italics aren't all terrible, and the point that different levels of emphasis can be useful is a valid one, although in many cases I don't think people use more than one level. It seems to me that many of the cases that Jon listed are areas where there is specific markup available - marking a span as being in another language that is already a priority 1 requirement in WCAG, using markup like cite and quote is there as priority 2, ... I have a small phone running a partial CSS implementation (Sony Ericsson - I don't know what their browser is) but have found that italics on it are like on medium-resolution screens - readable in large sizes (and I have a zoom feature on the phone) but not as pretty as they are when printed from true type. Which is why I use "avoid" rather than "don't". (Talking about when to use a size less than the user default for body text, my answer is "don't"...) cheers Chaals On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 05:57 US/Pacific, Tom Croucher wrote: > > I am not sure that I agree with some of the assumptions used her. Not > all italics are particularly detrimental to being able to read text. > It entirely depends on the font. The reason for having strong and em > is that they provide different roles. Strong gives more weight > (visually and semantically) to a word, as oposed to em which is > commonly used to mark out key points of information. This might seem a > subtle distinction but it is important. > > My two pence, > > Tom > > On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:28:36 +0100, Scarlett Julian (ED) > <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk> wrote: > >> >> >>> So my advice would be go with bolding if you need emphasis. >> >> Is there a case for doing away with <strong> altogether and having >> <em> display in bold by default unless specified as different in the >> css. It strikes me that the distinction, semantically, between <em> >> and <strong> is becoming rather blurred. >> >> Just thinking aloud.. >> >> Julian >> >> >>> >> >> The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not >> be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are >> not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your >> email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot >> accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this >> message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you >> suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please >> tell us as soon as possible. > > -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundación Sidar charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 09:57:28 UTC