- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:14:00 -0600
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org PF" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote: > I originally used <span>, but changed it to <em> based on the accessibility > feedback [1] to Karl's original proposal by Gregory Rosmaita, a reader of > W3C specs who uses a screen reader. The fact that these passages are being > called out as somehow special (marked with specific markup and class names) > is indicative that they are being emphasized. Could you explain why you > think such emphasis isn't warranted or desired? Maybe I'm just missing > something. I just don't see those sections as being emphasized; I wouldn't use a special tone of voice to read them out over the phone, for example. (I would do so for the words "Note:", "Warning:", etc., which is why <strong> is appropriate there.) >> If italics are desirable, >> please switch to using an <i> element instead. The use of <strong> >> within those examples is acceptable, however. > > (I think it's funny that the CSS WG would recommend using an old-fashioned > styling element like <i>... times change, I guess. ^_^) <i> ain't a styling element anymore. ^_^ It has (weak) semantics of 'this is something special, in an unspecified manner', which is precisely what you're trying to express. It also applies a useful styling for non-CSS user agents. (Sorry, was incorrect in my previous email - you do indeed remove the italics and style it in another fashion; <i> is still an appropriate element here.) > If you could comment on that, that might help move this issue forward. I'm > happy to use either <span> or <em>, based on what works best. I'm less > enthused about <i> for reasons I mentioned before, but will use that if > that's the general consensus. Sure. I agree that <span> is sub-optimal for this use-case; you *do* want to call it out as vaguely special, it's just not (in my opinion) <em>phasized. <i> carries the correct semantics of it being distinct from the surrounding content. Screenreaders may not be fully up-to-date in handling this sort of thing, however. > We also discussed including aural styles for these classes. Be careful - afaik, many (most?) screenreaders ignore aural styles, as inferring presentation from visual styles tends to be more reliable. Just do some research before you sink any time into providing aural-specific styles. >> The CSS WG does not have any further comments on your proposal. > > Is the CSS WG likely to adopt these spec conventions [2] (assuming we can > all come to agreement on the markup and styling)? The SVG WG has resolved > to adopt whatever common conventions are decided upon, as have the folks > working on the DOM3 Events spec with me. I can't speak for the CSSWG further than the comment I gave, but I don't personally see any particular reason why not, and suspect that we'd be fine with it. We produce our specs through Bert Bos's formatting script, and it shouldn't be a difficult thing to change that to match up with the final guidelines here. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 23:14:33 UTC