Nathan, Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 14:04:09 haben Sie geschrieben:
> Similarly, strong and emphasized elements are derivations of bold > and italicized type, respectively. If you think about listening to a > speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives much less > meaning to these "structural" elements (sometimes no meaning at > all). I do not follow your argumentation. <strong> and <em> aren't derivations of bold and italics but the otherway around. bold and italics are visual expressions of emphasis. In speech you do the same with intonation. If diferent people say the same thing in diferent languages or even in the same, it sounds diferent, but in means of structure you will still notice the emphasis, sometimes even without knowing the language. If you separate structure and visual expression, you've got much more chances to express exactly what you want. Yo can choose to express <em> as orange text and <strong> as red instead of just being bound to italics and bold. And a screenreader can still distinguish between normal and strong emphasis. Maybe someday you'll be able to instruct even the screenreader how you want to express this structure in aural way. > I would lump X/HTML in with that group of "inherently visual > documents." And someone will say, "But it's data recorded > electronically, not printed on a page," to which I would reply, "Data is > data, whether stored in ink or in memory." A hard drive can contain > 00010111, but whose to say whether that's a character or part of an > Elvis mp3? The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is > interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual. Screen > readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret > books orally. It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was > visual. You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION. These are different layers of the product that you see on your monitor or hear from your speakers. If you mix the compontents you loose flexibilty. If you store a book as DATA on a harddrive expressed as STRUCTUREd CONTENT - maybe technical as xml (or xhtml) - you can transform the same STRUCTURE with it's CONTENT to a visual representation (like a webpage) or using a screenreader to aural media (voice/mp3). You only have to change the VISUALIZATION. And I think that's huge a benefit. <em> and <strong> are much more meaningful than <b> or <i> because they don't loose their meaning when transformed to different media. Martin. ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
