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

RE: Bold vs Strong

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 16:16:50 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB22045238AA9BA9891EBB802EF1200@CY1PR03MB2204.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I would agree that if strong versus bold were used correctly then users who use custom stylesheets would be able to overwrite the 2 correctly.  For example, a b element could used within a heading because the heading already communicates the structure.  However, for a passage that was bolded to communicate strong semantics then the strong element would be the correct semantics with my custom CSS that I might want overridden.  So not all uses of b are problematic -- only the ones that are used to communicate semantic information that is not communicated another way.

I would consider use of B or I a guided automatic or potential automatic test because their use relies on human or AI judgement

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
jon.avila@levelaccess.com
703.637.8957 office

Visit us online:
Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog

Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A. Peters [mailto:mpeters@domblogger.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 11:18 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Bold vs Strong

One of the reasons I like strong / em is that I can use the semantic 
strong / em and then use css to make the visual distinction different 
that b / i when needed.

I rarely do that but for example - in an aside I normally have the the 
text italicized already so in an aside, I tend to use css to use more 
font weight with the em tag and both more font weight and underline with 
the strong tag.

Technically can do that with b / i tags as well - but using the CSS to 
override what tags historically mean isn't something I like.

But em / strong have semantic meaning and the display of bold / italic 
is just a default intended to be altered as needed.

Screen readers may not currently distinguish between b / i and strong / 
em but that doesn't make the difference meaningless.

On 08/06/2018 07:24 AM, Pyatt, Elizabeth J wrote:
> 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 16:28:42 UTC

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