Stuart Foulstone
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:39:14 -0700
But semantic mark-up such as <em> and <strong> is there for user-agents such as screen-readers to use. That they do not currently render them as different from normal text does not mean that it is not the intention. We create Web standards that user-agents can work towards implementing (if they wish) not the other way round. On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:17 pm, Rochester oliveira wrote: > <em> and <strong> are NOT for screen readers. they are for the semantic > markup. > > screen readers do not render <em> and <strong>, they read it as plain > text. > > 2008/3/27, IceKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I do the exact same thing (clicking on underlined text which isn't a >> link) but it does make it very complicated to create access keys for >> forms because <u> was used to show which letter was the access key. >> Messing around with endless spans will discourage them. I'm really >> sorry >> there is no alternative as there is with <b> and <i>. >> >> Does anyone know an alternative to <xmp>? I know you can use entitiy >> codes but this one saved the trouble and is now depreciated. Perhaps >> they could bring those two back. >> >> >> IceKat >> >> >> >> Joseph Ortenzi wrote: >> > Very good points >> > >> > <b> and <i> are stylistic and <em> and <strong> are semantic. >> > <u> is stylistic, but the intention of an underlined string of text >> > can be expressed with any of the above, dependent on intention. >> > >> > I am one of those severely frustrated people who want to click >> > underlined text so keep it out please... >> > >> > I like underline on hover as useful feedback that it is in fact, a >> > link. Predefined standard colours are less important these days, but >> > good design does seem to favour blue-ish for link as a convention. >> > >> > Joe >> > >> > >> > On Mar 27, 2008, at 09:14, Stuart Foulstone wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Usability. >> >> Users expect link-text to be underlined. Many user studies found >> that >> >> when you underline other text users try to click on it and get quite >> >> annoyed when nothing happens (some users would click on the >> underlined >> >> text several times before they gave up). >> >> >> >> Originally links were to have predefined colours that would have >> avoided >> >> this situation, but Web Designers thought better and decided to >> start >> >> styling their link colours as they thought fit. Even though this >> >> styling >> >> often does not include underlining, users still expect underlined >> >> text to >> >> mean links. This led to the confusion, so something had to give - >> it >> >> was >> >> <u>. >> >> >> >> <b> and <i> are not deprecated because there may be times when you >> >> want to >> >> style the text in that way but without the semantic emphasis that >> >> <em> and >> >> <strong> confer. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, March 27, 2008 4:28 am, Kepler Gelotte wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I am just curious if anyone can explain why the <u> tag has been >> >>> deprecated >> >>> while <b> and <i> are still allowed. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks in advance. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> Kepler Gelotte >> >>> Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. >> >>> 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 >> >>> www.neighborwebmaster.com >> >>> phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ******************************************************************* >> >>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> >>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> >>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>> ******************************************************************* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> ******************************************************************* >> >> >> > >> > ========== >> > Joe Ortenzi >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ******************************************************************* >> > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > ******************************************************************* >> > >> > >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ******************************************************************* >> >> > > > -- > []'s > > --------------------------------------------- > Rochester Oliveira > http://webbemfeita.com/ > "Viva a Web-Bem-Feita" > Web Designer > Curitiba - PR - Brasil > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************