On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 13:46 -0400, Adam Richardson wrote: > Hi Tedd, > > How's it going? I'm very pleased with the emphasis on accessibility you > bring to the PHP list, but I do believe you're overstating a few points > below. > > > > So, allow me to bring mine -- my information/position stems from my > > understanding derived from both daily practice and constant reading. In > > addition to reading links like the above (which I read btw), I also read > > several list provided by disability concerns, such as " > > webdev.lists.d.umn.edu" being the best. In addition to all that, I also > > read several technical books each week re these subjects. > > > > I'm thankful you've had the chance to inform your perspective on > development. > > > > For example, within this last month I've purchased and read HTML5 by > > Lawson, Smashing CSS by Meyer, 100 Things by Weinschenk, Learning Web Design > > by Robbins, Designing with the Mind in Mind by Johnson, Forms that work by > > Jarret, Build your own web site the right way by Lloyd, PHP 5.3 by Doyle, > > and Expert PHP and MySQL by Cuniosoa. That's a lot of reading, -- so I > > think I keep up with what's going on. > > > > Of the above books, which actually speaks to semantically appropriate > markup, and of that subset, which actually references the rationale for the > change in semantics of the <b> tag? And, of that subset, which argues > against using the <b> and <i> tags as recommended in the editors draft? > > I know that the Lawson book you mentioned references the <b> tag on 59, but > it does not disparage it's use (rather, it provides an example of the > appropriate use under (X)HTML5.) So that source would seem to support the > use of the <b> when semantically appropriate, just as Pilgram's book does. > > The rest of the list does show you've read a fair amount in the past month > (just as others on this list, including me), but what does it do to > specifically support your argument? > > > > While it is true that html5 brought back tags such as <b> and <i>, but it > > has also brought back <table> for presentation. I leave the reader (and the > > future) to judge the wisdom of that decision. > > > > The discussion is not about the table element's role attribute in (X)HTML5, > the discussion was centered on the specific change to the meaning of the <b> > tag. Even if the table tag implementation is questionable, that does not > mean all of the new semantics for the <b> are questionable. Each feature > stands on its own merits. > > > > I think we all realize the problems that these tags bring to the table (no > > pun intended). We can either continue to resolve the problems they present > > or we can resort back to the way things were. > > > > Again, the <table> tag was not the discussion. How would you markup text > that should be "stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying > any extra importance...?" You could choose to use a span tag. However, I > would, following the W3C quote above, choose to use the <b> tag as HTML5 > becomes better supported. > > > > As for me, I choose to never use <b> and <i> for anything PERIOD and to > > speak out against their use whenever I can. As for <table> in presentation, > > I am still undecided. While I would never use tables for the presentation of > > text, I often use simple tables (i.e., no nesting) for holding forms > > together. However, I am leaning toward not using tables for that either. > > > > I believe you have some <b> tags in your site. > > The world is changing and I don't think any organization can dictate what is > > the right/wrong way to do anything. But the good thing here is that we are > > left to our own judgement as to what we support and what we condemn. In my > > judgment, the <b> and <i> tags present more problems than they solve so I > > will continue to not use those tags and speak against them. > > > Our own judgement AND the standards set out there by the community of > professional web developers. The W3C is clearly moving to standardizing a > new use for the <b> and <i> tags, and I will try to follow the standard, as > other software developers (including those who develop screen readers) will > do to try and improve the user experience. > > Again, I greatly respect you, Ted, I have learned much from your posts, and > this discussion does not detract from that. However, I want to make sure the > developers subscribing to the list will consider the use of the <i> and <b> > tags as recommended by the W3C in (X)HTML5. > > Adam > I've read this thread right through and I have to agree with Tedd. The new HTML5 spec might say it's fine to use <b> and <i> now for certain cases, but I still would use <strong> and <em> for the majority of those and other markup where else I could. Consider the example which started this thread. It was merely to make part of a name bold. Here is how I probably would have marked it up to give it a semantic meaning: <span class="name">John <span class="surname">Smith</span></span> Easy to style however I wanted, easy to read the code and infer the meaning, and I believe there are things out there which digest content and make rudimentary attempts to decipher the meaning from simple classes such as these. In-fact, it was from simple class definitions like these that led to the creation of the new tags in HTML5 such as <footer> and <nav>. I feel it's only a matter of time before more tags are added to the mix (within limits of course, we don't want to remember a list of a million tags every time we fire up our editors to create something!) to make things even more semantic. For me, accessibility is only a hop away from semantics, so I try to avoid what I consider "bad" markup wherever I can. Although, as others have said, what is bad is largely, in part, down to user preference. -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
