Kepler Gelotte skrev:
Hi,
I am just curious if anyone can explain why the <u> tag has been deprecated
while <b> and <i> are still allowed.
Summary (most things have been said already):
Underlines on paper have no usability impact, since you cant click on
it! Underlines on web pages have a usability impact, since people think
they are clickable links.
Underlines on paper printed with a typewriter existed because it took a
great while until bold fonts or italics came around - and even when they
did you had to manually change the ball in your typewriter. Today
italics and bolding - as well as changing font size - exist and are more
aesthetically pleasing alternatives.
One should not think that conventions from print - or typewriters -
apply on the web. The web has its own conventions.
On the web, the convention is that links are blue (when not visited) and
underlined. Change one with care, change both with extreme care. The
main place where you can change this convention is in menus, where there
exist other visual clues to guide the user.
This means that there is no valid use case left for <u>.
Although most cases where one could have used <i> or <b> can be replaced
with CSS, <em>, <strong>, <dfn> or a header, there are still some use
cases left.
E.g. on forum software you may want to allow some styling. Abusing <em>
and <strong> for styling purposes is worse than using <b> and <i> for
emphasis. Semantic meaning that has been left out is a lesser evil than
semantic meaning that is misused.
Abusing <em> just for italics or <strong> just for bolding, when no
emphasis is intended is the same *sort of* abuse as using tables for
layout. It is only abuse of a slightly lesser degree.
<b> and <i> are actually lesser evils than inline styles, which may be
the only option left if they are removed. They are less bloated and way
easier to handle from a programming point of view.
As the HTML 5 standards stands today, this is the view of the working
group as well. The standard will provide some additional use cases where
<b> and <i> perhaps should be considered the best (or least sucky)
option available.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-i
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-b
This means (summary of my summary):
1. A. Never use <b> and <i> when there is a usable element with semantic
meaning.
1. B. But do *not* use semantic elements outside of their defined
meaning, which is even worse.
2. A. If possible use CSS. This means that web designers, who may do
stuff like editing the sites main CSS files, should use clever selectors
and semantically significant class names (like <p class="lede">, not <p
class="italics">) to achieve bolding and italics.
2. B. If possible, avoid using inline CSS. This means CMS software
should provide access to (a subset of) the designers classes - and
content providers be taught how to use them. WYSIWYG editors are often
the bane of good markup. If one has to chose between inline CSS and <b>
or <i>, use the elements.
Summary of my summary of my summary:
* A web developer should never use <b> and <i>.
* CMS software and an editor that can not access predefined classes
should prefer <b> and <i> over inline styles.
When googling to provide some additional info I found this, and since he
agrees with me it must be a fine resource:
http://green-beast.com/blog/?p=222
(I do however believe there is a use case for the <mark> element - until
recently called <m>.)
Lars Gunter
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
