Comments on: De-Emphasising http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/ Stating the obvious since 1982 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:37:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: ionfish http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-144 Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:23:01 +0000 http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-144 Yes, but <code>em</code> _can_ be displayed in different ways: plenty of people are experimenting at the moment with different coloured backgrounds and the like, as replacements for italics. It's not something I'd do, being more of a purist, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid visual representation of the element. Moreover, emphasis can be spoken too, so a screenreader could stress a word or section of text. I often read stuff I've written aloud; it helps me see if it flows well and is generally comprehensible. Obviously I can't pronounce italics, but I _can_ stress things. Yes, but em can be displayed in different ways: plenty of people are experimenting at the moment with different coloured backgrounds and the like, as replacements for italics. It’s not something I’d do, being more of a purist, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid visual representation of the element.

Moreover, emphasis can be spoken too, so a screenreader could stress a word or section of text. I often read stuff I’ve written aloud; it helps me see if it flows well and is generally comprehensible. Obviously I can’t pronounce italics, but I can stress things.

]]> by: Joel http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-142 Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:24:15 +0000 http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-142 HTML may contain "small" and "big", but I can't imagine anyone with any typographical taste ever using them. Much of the debate around proper markup seems to revolve around the idea that a blind person has no conception of "italic", therefore we must use "em" rather than "i", since emphasis is what we intend. But then we go away and specify "em" in our stylesheets as italic type for those sighted people who see our pages, since, after all, that is precisely what we intend, when it comes down to it. We are just sheep being herded into "good practice". I don't think it's worth losing too much sleep over, best to just think about it for a while as it takes our interest, and then leave it to the obsessives. HTML may contain “small” and “big”, but I can’t imagine anyone with any typographical taste ever using them. Much of the debate around proper markup seems to revolve around the idea that a blind person has no conception of “italic”, therefore we must use “em” rather than “i”, since emphasis is what we intend.

But then we go away and specify “em” in our stylesheets as italic type for those sighted people who see our pages, since, after all, that is precisely what we intend, when it comes down to it. We are just sheep being herded into “good practice”. I don’t think it’s worth losing too much sleep over, best to just think about it for a while as it takes our interest, and then leave it to the obsessives.

]]> by: ionfish http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-141 Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:57:29 +0000 http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-141 That's a fair point, but what about the @small@ and @big@ elements? They don't seem to have semantic content in the same way that emphasis does. Subscript and superscript is a bit weaker than emphasis, since it's just a convention about how we display certain technical extensions of ordinary language, but nonetheless I can see a stronger case for its inclusion in HTML(Hypertext Markup Language) than @small@ and @big@; in fact, @small@ would seem the perfect candidate for replacement by a de-emphasis element. Relative text size seems (to me at least) to be presentation, not structure or content. Nonetheless, on reflection I think you're right about alterations to ordinary text emphasising it, no matter the intentions behind that alteration. That’s a fair point, but what about the small and big elements? They don’t seem to have semantic content in the same way that emphasis does. Subscript and superscript is a bit weaker than emphasis, since it’s just a convention about how we display certain technical extensions of ordinary language, but nonetheless I can see a stronger case for its inclusion in HTML than small and big; in fact, small would seem the perfect candidate for replacement by a de-emphasis element. Relative text size seems (to me at least) to be presentation, not structure or content.

Nonetheless, on reflection I think you’re right about alterations to ordinary text emphasising it, no matter the intentions behind that alteration.

]]> by: Joel http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-140 Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:56:43 +0000 http://ionfish.co.uk/2005/11/de-emphasising/#comment-140 Anything you do to small portions of ordinary roman text serves to emphasise it. Italic and bold are two different forms of emphasis; italic being the historical emphasis and bold being the uncouth web person's idea of "extra" emphasis. Making type lighter doesn't de-emphasise it, it emphasises it by making it slightly harder to read. More attention is required to read grey text in black content, so it is emphasis of another type. Seems to me that changing the colour of a certain portion of the text is best served by "span class". The idea of de-emphasising may sound good in theory, but I don't think there is any way to de-emphasise text from the ordinary roman since any change made to it will naturally emphasise it. Anything you do to small portions of ordinary roman text serves to emphasise it. Italic and bold are two different forms of emphasis; italic being the historical emphasis and bold being the uncouth web person’s idea of “extra” emphasis. Making type lighter doesn’t de-emphasise it, it emphasises it by making it slightly harder to read. More attention is required to read grey text in black content, so it is emphasis of another type.

Seems to me that changing the colour of a certain portion of the text is best served by “span class”. The idea of de-emphasising may sound good in theory, but I don’t think there is any way to de-emphasise text from the ordinary roman since any change made to it will naturally emphasise it.

]]>