<b></b> vs. <strong></strong>

[ched]

I've seen bold text done both ways. Is there an advantage to one over the other?

[Capital Web Design]

The advantage to the "strong" tag is that the "b" tag is now deprecated. While it still works, at any time it could be phased out by a new revision of html. I recommend using the strong tag to keep your pages up to date.

[carju1]

Thats progress for you, we change an easy to type 3 letter tag to a 8 letter tag to do the same job. Oh yes I forgot no one codes by hand nowadays and adding 10 chars of text to each bold on a page thereby increasing download time doesn't matter as all the W3 lot have broadband connections.

The official definition from W3 is

The presentation of phrase elements depends on the user agent. Generally, visual user agents present EM text in italics and STRONG text in bold font. Speech synthesizer user agents may change the synthesis parameters, such as volume, pitch and rate accordingly.

So don't use B use STRONG or suffer the wrath of W3 and in a few years new browser won't see you B's

Julian

[SyrenSong]

Actually, if you use css (cascading style sheets), you don't have to use the [b] or [b] code in your html file at all. Then you don't have to worry about whether the tag is deprecated or not.

Using css will also help to decrease your page size overall by removing many of your font, b, center, etc. tags, so it's a plus in many ways. Especially for dialup surfers!

As for the reason it's being deprecated, that has a lot to do with programming standards for the disabled.

Speech browsers interpret [b] in the verbal presentation of a webpage and use that as an indication to add emphasis to a word. Since [b] is often used only as a attention-getter for headers, etc., speech browsers tend to ignore the tag. They identify headers in other ways, so to them, the [b] tag is redundant.

HTH!
Syren

[ched]

ty for the info all. I know it's not terribly important in the whole scheme of things, but it's always nice to be armed with as much info as possible. I never had a clue about the speach end of it.

I'm putting more of the basic stuff into css now-a-days, but will move more there as I become better with it.

Just a heads up ... my next few questions are gonna be directed at the validation threads/topics. See ya there soon ;)

and thanks again.

[SyrenSong]

Ah. Validation. That can be loads of fun!

I'll keep my eyes open. ;)

Syren

[Paulo]

Originally Posted by carju1

Oh yes I forgot no one codes by hand nowadays

Ouch. You know fine well that we still do code by hand. :-)

We may use an HTML editor to save time & knock-up the initial pages but it very often throws up a lot of extraneous code that needs to be dealt with.

[SyrenSong]

Good catch, Paulo!

I love Dreamweaver, but if I didn't get in do some hand-teaking here and there, I wouldn't get everything done that needed doing to make the site look and work properly!

Syren

[carju1]

Syren & Paulo,

Exactly we do still code by hande. SO why change our 3 char tag to 8 chars to meet speech browers why not change speech browser to meet our <"b"> tag.

There are millions of pages of HTML out there which theoretically need changing but how many different speech browsers are there? If one of the independent invalid car manufactures came out with a fantastic new design which was wider than a standard road lane width do you think the governments in every country would widen every road? NO they woulded say make it narrower to fit existing roads.

Julian

[SyrenSong]

Originally Posted by carju1

There are millions of pages of HTML out there which theoretically need changing but how many different speech browsers are there? If one of the independent invalid car manufactures came out with a fantastic new design which was wider than a standard road lane width do you think the governments in every country would widen every road? NO they woulded say make it narrower to fit existing roads.

Those millions of HTML pages are soon to be out of date anyway with upcoming changes to HTML and XHTML standards. Many pages designed in older versions of HTML are using deprecated and obsolete tags can't be viewed properly today in some of the newer browsers.

Standards change. It's a way of life.

Using an analogy similar to your own, the reason trains tracks are spaced the distance apart they are is because of the width of ruts in the road caused by wagon wheels. Yes, the old standard width remains, but modern trains have very little to do with wagons and old-style wagons certainly can't run on modern train tracks.

Older browsers can't handle newer codes and newer html codes can do a heck of a lot more than older browsers can handle. In spite of the coding similarities, there are a lot of advances and advantages to using the newer versions of html. It's a fact of web life.

So they're going to remove the [b] tag in favor of something else that's more powerful and versatile. I can't see that as a bad thing in the long run. Particularly when you look at the accessibility advantage. It makes creating an accessible site that much easier for the "common man".

I'm all in favor of that!

As for changing speech browser to read the [b] tag, I'm sure there's some obscure reason for that unknown to us mere mortals. My first guess would be confusion with access keys, but I can't say for certain.

I'll admit that you could have a good point there, though!

Syren

[ched]

I can tell you two have been exchanging comments for quite some time.

They almost sound like a comfortable married couple don't they folks?

LOL ... good points all the way around, and thanks again.
;)

[ched]

by the way,
is the same true with the center tags?
<center></center> is becoming obsolete and
<p align=center></p> has become the standard?

I know I have to keep up and all, it's just that when I do go in and tweak a page, it seems all the quick old stuff is becoming obsolete (to the point where is soon won't be usable by the next version of browsers)
the
, <center>, [b], [i] stuff was all quick (well not being a great typist, the brackets and slashes slow me down a bit), and now it just seems to be getting more and more to the point where you have to cut the chord somewhere.

Almost to the point where cross-platform / cross-browser compatability won't be possible. Seems as if we're getting very close to the point where you pick either the new or the old, but you can't have both .... just my waundering thoughts for this evening.

[SyrenSong]

Originally Posted by ched

I can tell you two have been exchanging comments for quite some time.

They almost sound like a comfortable married couple don't they folks?

I think my husband would take exception to that.

But carju1 argues well and a good argument is always fun! Particularly with a knowledgeable opponent. :)

***********

As for the center tag and others, here's a link to W3C's Index of the HTML 4 Elements. This has a list of all elements and their current status.

I'm not 100% sure about the center tag, though. I believe most things of that sort are being shunted to cascading style sheets.

I believe in the long run style sheets will make for smaller html documents, because you could define a specific class as centered, bolded and in a different font face and style in your style sheet. Then all you'd have for that paragraph in your html file would be:

<p class="TheWorks">Fancy text goes here.</p>

Infinitely less typing for hand-coders, like carju1! ;p

Syren

[carju1]

Syren,

Yep my wife would join your husband in taking exception there.

As you say its always fun to debate with someone who know what they are talking about, can put there argument across and doesn't take offense when you tell them that (in your opinion) they are wrong :)

Julian

[carbonize]

I write all of my pages by hand thank you very much :|

And in regards to "future" browsers not recognising the [b] and [i] tags, it will never happen. Any browser needs to be able to view ANY page avalable on the web otherwise who would use it? If you check the error pages you get in Internet Explorer you will see that they are HTML 2.0! I personally use [b] because thats how I learnt.

Syrensong, yes css makes pages smaller. But I personally, and I'm sure others as well, like to occassionaly make a word, letter, or string bold and to do that in css would require making them a span or div, both of which would use up far more space than a good old , not to mention the space in the CSS it's self.

[SyrenSong]

Don't get me wrong, guys. I have nothing against the [b] tag, or any other tags. It's simply that I understand the need for other ways of doing things and I try to keep that in mind when programming.

Yes, there are times when just a simple little "b" is more expedient, but I also think it's more user-friendly to use the "strong" tag when you're trying to emphasize a point, rather than just trying to make the text look better on a slightly heavy background.

Know what I mean?

As for newer browsers recognizing deprecated tags, well, I would imagine that's on of the reasons browsers keep getting larger over the years, instead of smaller.

Eventually, one of the major companies is going to start cutting back and support for deprecated tags will begin disappearing. At that point, there are going to be an awful lot of websites that'll need to be redesigned.

I intend to be ready and waiting to get the job done - without the "b" tag! ;)

Syren

[carbonize]

And what about those people out there using browsers that don't support css?
Just cast them aside as you feel it's to much hard word making the site work for their browsers?
You going to tell your server not to serve pages to browsers that do not suport css to prevent your work looking bad?
That would put you in the same league as all the web site designers that code there page to look good in IE and totally ignore every other browser. Now I know you're not like that from reading some of your other posts but your last comment is very much that sort of mentality. Going by your train of thought I suggest you start learning XHTML as HTML is set to be deprecated at some point in the future along with the [b] and [i] tags.

[SyrenSong]

Originally Posted by carbonize

And what about those people out there using browsers that don't support css?
Just cast them aside as you feel it's to much hard word making the site work for their browsers?
You going to tell your server not to serve pages to browsers that do not suport css to prevent your work looking bad?

Absolutely not!

When I code in css, I also take the time to look at the page with css disabled and see what it looks like from there. I try to make sure folks that don't have css ability will at least have a viewable site. It may not be as pretty as more advanced browsers, but at least I know they'll get the important information.

BTW, it's very easy to to preview the site without css using "@ import" to call the style sheet and viewing the site in Netscape 4.x. Or using a favelet in IE to disable css. I know there's another way, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. I think you can also disable css from the menu in Opera, but I'm not 100% sure of that.

That would put you in the same league as all the web site designers that code there page to look good in IE and totally ignore every other browser. Now I know you're not like that from reading some of your other posts but your last comment is very much that sort of mentality.

You're right. I'm not like that. And thanks for noticing. ;)

Like I said, I always try to take the time to view the site without css, to make sure it's still usable, viewable, readable, etc. I've come to understand how important it is to make a site compatible with multiple browsers.

That's another reason I believe in validation! :)

Going by your train of thought I suggest you start learning XHTML as HTML is set to be deprecated at some point in the future along with the [b] and [i] tags.

I'm working on it, even as I type this post. You can't let grass grow under your feet in this business! ;)

Syren

[ched]

[quote="SyrenSong
I'm working on it, even as I type this post. You can't let grass grow under your feet in this business! ;)

Syren[/quote]

I'd be happy if I could just stop running long enough to take a breath. I've pretty much given up on keeping up on all the new hardware things (other than knowing what I can use to replace what) ... then there's the OS stuff - I haven't gotten back to the Linux I was learning in over 2 YEARS (guess I'm a little behind on that one now huh?), and just when I get a good handle on XP (on the heels of Win2k), they throw Server 2003 at us ... Was just getting UNIX/Apache figured out, and got hit with IRIX/Zeus, so now that's on the back burner; I think I've forgotten everything I ever knew in VB, C, Basic, and we can toss Delphi, Fortran, and Assembler right out the window cause I never got beyond the basics with them ..............

OHHH .... wait, you were just talking "webmaster stuff?" ...
kk, I kinda get a handle on javascripting, just jump into a little java with SDK/JDK, and we get a new round of stuff from asp, jsp, php and cfm..... oh wait again, I'm supposed to be learning xml huh? .........or should I be digging into the "validation" things?. Geesh, I didn't even really look at SEO until this past April ........ let's see, where was I? Grass growing, yeppers Syren, not in the computer world!

[SyrenSong]

While you're tossing out Fortran and Assembler, does anyone still use Cobol anymore? And how about Pascal? I can't remember anymore.

A friend of mine once described it as "penguins on an iceflow". Ever watch 'em? There's only so many that'll fit. When one too many climbs on, another one jumps off.

That reminds me, I used to know JCL pretty well. "Used to" being the optimal phrase here. Then there was all that stuff about T1/DS1 and T3/DS3 circuits, and fiber optics, protected circuits, repeaters, etc.

BTW, did you mean to leave off Accessibility? Oops! There goes another penguin! ;)

Syren

[Webnauts]

For Web sites accessibility, you should use the [b] tag instead of the deprecated tag [b].