In checking out the Live Demo of the product, I noticed that it was using the tags <i> for italic and <b> for bold. Before I started to spout off about how this new app was producing “old deprecated code” I decided to see if I was wrong (it would not be the first time) and if things in HTML5 had changed the standards for these two presentational tags. I opened up a bit of a tempest in a teapot.

In my “research” I discovered that in fact there is a proposal in the HTML5 to re-institute the old <i> and <b> codes with a new spin while still retaining the <em> and <strong>. For background, I  used a W3C article about the use of the <i> and <b> and an article from HTML5 Doctor that provides a better explanation.

For those of you completely confused at this point let me attempt to explain the history (at least from my perspective).

When HTML was first developed there were relatively few “tags” – technically called HTML Elements – for marking up alphanumeric content.  The initial thrust at the time was to help content developers re-create in webpages what currently existed in the printed form.  People were used to seeing words in italics and bold so it was logical to include the ability to create this in HTML. However, as the HTML language evolved, there was a recognition that coding needed to respond to the needs of users/readers and provide more than just presentational information.

In the first iteration of HTML, the <i> element, used for italics, and the <b> element, used for bold, were originally thought of as “presentation only” elements – meaning, they would “catch the readers eye” and show the so-highlighted words as being distinct within the written context. By the time HTML v 4.0 came around, there was a recognition that the use of italics and bold in printed form was more than simply presentation, these elements also provide semantic emphasis of the highlighted text. As a result, web designers were encouraged to use the new tag of <em> for “emphasis” to replace the <i> for italics and <strong> for, er, “strong” to replace the <b> for bold. In the 1998 publication HTML: The Definitive Guide, 3rd Ed, the authors note “Like the <em> tag, the <strong> tag is for emphasizing text, except with more gusto…<em> text is like shouting, <strong> text is nothing short of a scream.”

As time went on, arguments regarding the use of these elements increased. One of the more provocative commentaries centered around the needs of users of assistive technology – specifically screen readers – and how HTML needs to be be advanced to provide more to people with disabilities. I can even remember a time when there was serious talk that these tags would eventually be used by screen reader software (and all text to speech applications) in a way that would actually “express” the emphasis in the aural output. But that technological advancement has not happened (yet).

In the latest arguments, it is noted that the use of italic and bold in the printed, as well as web form are not always used for emphasis. Sometimes the font is changed to denote a word written in a different language or to imply some alternative “voice” such as the narrative of “dream sequence” in a literary work.

I have read the two articles mentioned above and I must admit that I am still confused. But the gist of these changes are as follows (note this is my understanding – you may have to make you own interpretations):

In the new HTML5, situations where the web designer needs to ensure that the highlighted words are emphasized with a specific semantic intent, the <i> and the <b> would now be used. However, with <i> and <b> tags there is an expectation that the designer will also add a class attribute, as in <i class=”voiceover”> or <i lang=”fr”>. On the other hand, if the web designer simply needs to create a presentational element – the proverbial “eye grabber” – then the <em> and <bold> are used. Seems like it is backwards, no?

If you are not confused yet, this next part will surely put you over the top.

As the Wc3 notes in this article about the changes:

They continue:

The HTML5 specification redefines the intended use of these elements as follows.

So there you have it – clear as mud.

To be continued…(italic mine!)

References:

Musciano, C. and Kennedy, B. (1998). HTML: The definitive guide, 3rd ed. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

Ishida, R. (2010). Using <b> and <i> elements. W3C. (on-line)

Studholme, O. (2010) The i, b, em, & strong elements. HTML5 Doctor (on-line)

I have disliked Flash for a long time, primarily due to its problems with assistive technologies; it often does not play well with screen readers, especially if it has not been developed correctly. In my mind, many Flash developers are graphic artists, illustrators or animators, and don’t really understand web design.

Add to this the fact that more people are now accessing web content via a non-traditional user agent (i.e., not a traditional browser) and you see why I agree with Bradley that Flash may be past its prime.

It’s ironic that Adobe developed Acrobat to find a way to share documents at a time just prior to the “invention” of HTML. Flash, build on the same business principles, was developed for the same reason. And once again, a new standard (HTML 5) may usurp their position. And, I should point out that the new standard will be accessible to screen readers.

But just as those who predicted the demise of Adobe Acrobat 15 years ago were wrong, I suspect it is not quite time for Adobe to throw in the towel and hire the undertaker. Look for Flash to be around for some time to come. But at least for some of us, there will be other options.

This will be interesting to watch.