Re: Bold vs Strong

Hi Katie,

Thanks for the information and guidance.

⁣Regards,
Vinil Peter, PMP​

On Aug 5, 2018, 11:09 PM, at 11:09 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>Vinil,
>
>Please see WCAG 2 failure technique as rationale for using semantic
>markup:
>https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F2.html
>F2: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to using changes in text
>presentation to convey information without using the appropriate markup
>or
>text
>
>On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 11:17 AM Vinil Peter <vinilpeter.wcag@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I have been asked to provide my thoughts on a debate on the use of
>bold
>> <b> and strong <strong> for one of my clients. The client's internal
>> accessibility testing team marked all the instances where <b> was
>used as
>> errors and recommended to change them to <strong> so that screen
>readers
>> read out the text with added emphasis. This has brought their quality
>and
>> compliance scores down drastically. The client's developers are
>unhappy
>> about this and claim that they should not be marked down as there is
>no
>> clear guideline or fine print that mandates use of <strong> over <b>.
>> Moreover, W3C has not deprecated <b> yet and it's usage is still
>permitted.
>> <b> has been in use since ages and asking to replace all bold text
>with
>> strong is like declaring that  use of <b> should be banned
>henceforth.
>>
>> I am planning to give my recommendation to use <strong> in headers or
>> functionality names etc. if the text is bold as per  design, while it
>is
>> still fair to allow use of <b> for other bold text. The 'appropriate
>usage'
>> of bold or strong is finally the designer's call as there is no clear
>> guideline.
>>
>> Is my recommendation correct or am I missing something? What your
>thoughts
>> and have you come across any such debate?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vinil Peter, PMP
>>