don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but as far as screen readers like JAWS and Window Eyes are concerned the strong element does not convey any meaning. It is not recognised by them.
They do not change the way text within strong elements are announced, but neither do they do it for <em> or <b> or <i> etc. JAWS does have a speech and sound scheme that includes modified announements of italicised or bolded text (amogst other things), this is not a default scheme, though and is provided for tasks such as proofreading. but this facility is based on how the text is rendered on screen, not on how it is marked up. bottom line is that for users these screen readers using strong as an indication of a required field won't be of any help. On 25/02/2008, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have this question about "strong element being more semantical and > accessible for required field" in the web form and like to hear your > opinion. > > I came to the conclusion after conducting my little user testing - it > first started with an intention of spam and error monitoring over the > form script I use, I then learned that despite the indication that > "asterisk" is marked as required field", many people who took time to > submit the forms on clients' sites still missed the "*". Because I > use no JS validation for the form, I decided to bold the required > field using strong element for two new sites. It seems working as the > bold texts caught people attention and I received no errors email > notification on missing to enter requried fields. The result also gave > me a though on how screen readers treat the strong element and that > it's indeed more accessible and semantically correct. > > Working on a site, and thanks to Matt Fellows and his futher > assistance, I implemented his JS form validation script to the web > form. Using "asterik " to indicate the required field no longer is an > issue with JS validation, however I decided to stick with the strong > element. Much work had put into it to modify the code and css, but > client came back to me to want the '*' over the <strong> because it's > a conventional practice. > > Really want to stick with the strong element for the reason above, > however I am also doubting my conclusion that it's more accessible > for screen readers as I never tested on one. Before I try to convince > client the strong element is better approach, I would love to hear > your opinion. > > Thank you! > > tee > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
