- From: Mohith BP <mohith.ckm49@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:57:21 +0530
- To: Vinil Peter <vinilpeter.wcag@gmail.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Vinil, Though WCAG recommends using <em> and <strong> elements, however, the support from the major screen readers for these 2 tags is nill. Please refer: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/Techniques/ua-notes/html#H49 Thanks & Regards, Mohith B. P. On 8/5/18, 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
Received on Monday, 6 August 2018 05:27:47 UTC