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

Re: Bold vs Strong + questiob

From: Michael A. Peters <mpeters@domblogger.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:01:36 -0700
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <5457859c-8803-8230-9b0c-a0f0297f8f08@domblogger.net>
On 09/06/2018 05:45 AM, Taliesin Smith wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> I found a tweet yesterday (thanks Aidan Tierney) that linked to an A
> List Apart article on /Conversational Semantics/ by *Aaron Gustafson*. I
> think this article sheds some light on this conversation, so here is the
> url:
> https://alistapart.com/article/conversational-semantics
> Taliesin

Not specifically related, but I recently have been doing some 
translation of a Fraktur script (A German Blackletter) document.

When they wanted to emphasize something, how we often use Italics, they 
added extra spacing between the letter - but without breaking up ligatures.

I'm not positive on this yet - but it seems that at least of the 
typographers when they wanted the equivalent of our strong - what they 
would do is use a slightly large font size, start it with upper case, 
and use alternate upper case letters.

There are a few places where the lower cases match but look a little 
bigger, that start with an upper case that is clearly a little different 
than the same upper case elsewhere in the document.

Anyway these are all reasons to use semantic over descriptive tags. 
Semantic allows the typesetting to be interpreted according to 
convention, and in accessibility that convention often isn't visible.


I'm thinking there needs to be a book/article name tag too. When I 
typeset, I tend to italicize and underline those - but many just italicize.

But if visual is being used to convey context then a semantic tag/label 
would be good to have. Is there one?
Received on Friday, 7 September 2018 00:02:03 UTC

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