Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5811RE: [NH] RE: vs. , vs.

Expand Messages
  • Corl DeLuna
    Mar 6, 2007
      Hi Scott,

      I actually think I spend way too much time figuring this all out, it was
      supped to be so simple. But, I do my best to let my audiences browsing
      capabilities lead me in my coding choices.

      From what I've gathered the debate is like the song, "you say Potato, I say
      Potado... let call the whole thing off." Use what you are comfortable with.


      From: ntb-html@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ntb-html@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of Scott Fordin
      Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:54 AM
      To: ntb-html@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [NH] RE: <em> vs. <i>, <strong> vs. <b>

      Hi, Corl,

      It's encouraging -- and impressive -- that you take the time
      to research your tagging options, test your pages thoroughly,
      and keep abreast of the latest accessibility and technology
      standards. Well done!

      I hope I didn't come across as too pedantic in stating my
      positions on this debate. Coding and page design, as precise
      and technical as they can be, are also an art form and quasi-
      religion informed by personal habits, proclivities, thought
      processes, and styles. I certainly don't claim insight into
      all the advantages and limitations of one particular set of
      tags or styles over another. I do, however, stand by my
      justifications for choosing <em> over <i> and <strong> over
      <b>. I'm just a structural kind of nerd, I guess...

      Keep writing clean code!

      Best regards,


      Corl DeLuna wrote:
      > Hi Scott & Marcelo,
      > Thank you both for your very interesting points on these tags. I have
      > heard them before.
      > Rest assured that I test each page with the JAWS screen reader, and
      > one of them is validated. I've implemented most of the guidelines listed
      > http://diveintoacce <http://diveintoaccessibility.org/.> ssibility.org/.
      <http://diveintoacce <http://diveintoaccessibility.org/.> ssibility.org/.>
      > While perfection is not possible, I think
      > I'm going in the right direction to properly serve my audience.
      > Pondering your points, I looked up the debate and I found that all of
      > tags are valid and legal, none have been depreciated
      > http://www.w3school <http://www.w3schools.com/tags/default.asp>
      > <http://www.w3school <http://www.w3schools.com/tags/default.asp>
      > At Web Accessibility I found: "...screen readers (or at least Jaws)_can_
      > differentiate, it's just that most users don't switch the facility on."
      > I read: "By default the major screen readers have this ability turned
      > "...I have not found anywhere within the JAWS or HomePage Reader software,
      > nor within their
      > documentation, anything that talks about turning on any such capability."
      > I read: "Turning it on is not officially documented."
      > "While the current crop of screen reading software may not differentiate
      > between these elements, there is nothing to say that someday some tool
      > will."
      > I read: "Sure it doesn't make any difference now, but someday -- maybe --
      > might. So, do it for the unknown future."
      > http://www.webaim.
      > <http://www.webaim.
      > As part of keeping my content current and trustworthy I update my pages at
      > least once a year, so as standards and technology really change, and are
      > really supported, I'm there.
      > So, in good faith, my use of all four tags styled with CSS still stands on
      > solid standards compliant ground. Even more importantly, it serves all my
      > readers with visual disabilities, and the normally sighted as well.
      > Cheers!
      > Corl

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 44 messages in this topic