W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2018

Re: Bold vs Strong

From: Pyatt, Elizabeth J <ejp10@psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:24:00 +0000
To: Mohith BP <mohith.ckm49@gmail.com>
CC: Vinil Peter <vinilpeter.wcag@gmail.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DF078BB9-3997-4580-BC9A-FC3AC1A45C1E@psu.edu>
I concur with Mohith. 

Because most screen readers and visual browsers treat STRONG/B identically by default, the distinction seems irrelevant for now. 

 It is important to note that screen readers ignore both STRONG/B tags along with EM/I and color changes by default. Use either one as needed assuming that they convey little semantic info to screen readers.

If you really are using STRONG/B or EM/I for major inline emphasis, you may want to add text like Note: or Warning: or Important: This was the recommendation I got from my screen reader colleagues. 

It's also important to tag headings consistently regardless of other formatting tags. Some cautions etc. can be headings.

My two cents.

Elizabeth J. Pyatt, Ph.D.
Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 6, 2018, at 1:32 AM, Mohith BP <mohith.ckm49@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FWCAG20%2FTechniques%2Fua-notes%2Fhtml%23H49&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cejp10%40psu.edu%7C5fac45f8eafa433d7cea08d5fb5e10c1%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C636691303780330250&amp;sdata=n4c9uZ8knlvd0aYyKDm0a1GXB2vKjsGVJidOO4dHwQw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 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 14:24:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:37:20 UTC