Look! There is a thing!

.

On a list, we got into a discussion of how to render italics and bold. I said that my understanding was that the new forms <em> and <b> are supposed to be more 'flexible'. A list-sib questioned that; as she said, "Italics is italics and bold is bold; how can they be more flexible?"

My response was --

"Sorry, when I said 'flexible', I meant "more flexible for the internal development of new programs". Or something like that. I read an explanation but, between the explanation trying to put programming ideas into "civilian" language, and me not being all that interested anyway, my grasp is shaky, indeed. Like, I simply don't understand why programming with <em> is more useful / flexible / program-compliant / whatever then programming with <i>. And, even if the programmers are using <em>, I don't see why they plan to phase out <i>; they should be able to co-exist. (Personally, I think computer programmers are constitutionally incapable of seeing the easy way to anything.)"

But then I did a little Googling, to make sure my half-formed ideas were at least close to correct, and to better explain what is going on with these changes.

"Okay, I just found this online: "EM is used to indicate emphasized text. While it is often rendered identical to I, italics, using EM rather than I is preferred. It allows the browser to distinguish between emphasized text and other text which can be drawn in italics (for example titles)."

So that makes sense to me, and I hope I can remember it. If people are using screen readers, and you want to convey auditory "weight", you'd use <em>, but <i> for visually distinguishing things that don't need a voice change. Like:

"Oh, man, this'll be <em>great</em>!" Blair said as he read the announcement in the <i>Journal of Modern Anthropology</i>.

Of course, the chances that anyone will be using a screen reader to access our particular stories are probably slight; it's up the individual whether they want to make the switch or not. (At least for a few years...)

Similarly with bold. <strong> is "strongly emphasized" text (I think of a shout), where <b> is a bold look without the sound -- section headings, for instance. They won't LOOK different to the visual reader, but will sound different when accessed via screen reader.

So maybe <i> and <b> aren't going to be phased out ("deprecated") as was my impression. But then another article I found online is talking about whether or not deprecation is a good idea. (I think; they lost me after the first paragraph.)

Me... I expect my phone to receive calls, my camera to take pictures, and my computer to allow me email; I do not WANT a thing that does all three, thankyouverymuch. All I can do is shrug, smile sweetly (or grumpily, as the mood strikes), and try to balance current developments with my personal comfort. If <em> will make my story more accessible to a screen reader user somewhere down the line, I can handle that.

Although that leaves me wondering about the use of italics for thoughts. We can read that visually as internal, but if a screen reader is using an <em>phasized voice, that kind of detracts from the mood we're trying to set up. I wonder if anyone's thought of a <whi> tag, for a quieter, whispery voice...

So, there you go; "you pays your money and you makes your choice". But at least now, you have some idea whether or not you want to use <em> instead of <i>, or <strong> instead of <b>.

Happy coding.

.

.
I made a post about HTML codes for accented words, but did I ever tell you how to make MS Word give you the accented word you want, even if it's not part of the automatic process? I don't think so.

As I said in the post above, Microsoft Word will often put in the correct accent mark automatically. But what if it doesn't? Word considers 'latte' acceptable without the accent. It considers 'naivete' without the accent unacceptable -- gives the red spellchecker squiggle of doom -- but does not automatically correct it.

Note: this tip only works if you have spellchecker turned on: Tools - Spelling & Grammar - Options - Check spelling as you type. Some people don't like the Red Squiggle of Doom, but I find it useful. Whoops! Fumble-fingered mistype -- fix it!

1. The trick is to use the red squiggle, then right-click to access Word's internal dictionary and select the accented version. Under 'naivete', the dictionary offers both 'naiveté' and 'naïveté'. (Dictionary.com doesn't say whether one is preferable. I figure, 'naïve' has the i-umlaut, so 'naïveté' should also have it.)

2. If the typed word doesn't give the red squiggle alert -- as in 'latte' -- you can force it. Type 'lattee'; then right-click, and 'latté' is one of the selections.


But what if Word doesn't have a suggestion, as in senor? 'Señor' is not in the internal dictionary... but you can add it.

On the top menu bar, click Insert - Symbol. That opens a chart full of accented letters, Greek and Arabic characters, and various other symbols. Scan for the symbol you want -- in this case the ñ -- and select it. Then type the other letters around it to make 'señor'.

This leads to the Red Squiggle of Doom, but you want that. Now you can right click, and select 'Add to dictionary'. Now, when you deliberately mistype -- as in [2], above -- something like 'senoor', you can right-click on the squiggle, and 'señor' will be one of the possible selections. (Along with 'senior' and 'sensor'.) It's sooooo much easier than adding the special character each time you need it.


That's it -- as usual, it's longer to explain than do. Once you've added the accented words you frequently use to the internal dictionary, you'll save time and frustration when trying to create them.

As always, feel free to pass along the link to this post to anyone who needs it.
.

.

(I'm not even sure that's the correct term. I'm talking about those gadgets that read aloud what's on the webpage.)

Or do you know someone who uses a screen-reader, that you could ask and pass the answers on to me?

The thing is, I want to make my fic-DW more accessible to screen-readers, and use the same coding for ASR3 and AO3. I understand about <em> versus <i>, and <strong> versus <b>, but I have questions about a few other things.

I've read that screen-readers don't recognize <hr> (section break). Is that true? If so, I'm thinking about coding a visible section break along with a 'hidden' "Chapter Break" or "Section Break" statement. 'Hidden' as in text color same as background, so visual readers won't see it, but screen-readers would say it for a listener. Does that seem a workable solution to you?

How do screen-readers handle all-caps? If I type 'USA', does it say "you-ess-ay", or does it say something like "oosah"? If it tries to make all-caps a 'word', would it say the individual letters if I used periods, as in U.S.A.? (I hate that, but I could learn to do it.)

Or, do all-caps 'translate' to a shout, like, "SANDBURG! GET BACK!" Sometimes I'd want that, obviously, but other times it wouldn't be appropriate. If I know the spoken result, I can tailor my expressiveness accordingly.

What about using <blockquote> for an indented section? Is that ignored by the screen-reader, or does it bollix up the read-back?


I figure it'll be easier to do new coding 'clean', rather than fixing it up later. Any information would be greatly appreciated. (And then I'll make another post to put with all my other HTML-tip posts.) Thank you.

ETA: When I asked this question at accessibility_fail, I got a bunch of useful answers, with many links to sites I'll need to study. I'm posting the link here so I won't lose it, and the post I intend to make with my 'discoveries' and conclusions will be later than I thought.

This link on H.T.M.L. for websites is also useful.
.

.

I did a post similar to this a while back, but I think -- hope! -- that this is a little more organized than that one.

In this post, you'll find:
[A] - instructions for using Word to easily insert code for italics and/or bold after a document is already finished
[B] - instructions for searching the text in Word to quickly locate italics and/or bold text
[C] - finding colored font in a Word document
[D] - turning "smart" quotes and apostrophes into "straight"

( Quick-Coding Italics and Bold /and/ Finding Colored Font )