For my students…

In one of the Quiz questions in Unit C, the following question was asked…

The tag <i>…</i> is available only to devices that can visually display text.

• Incorrect Response: True
• Correct Answer: False

The text book author on page c-6 states that this is True although the quiz is set up to mark the correct answer as false. So which is correct? The quiz or the author on page c-6?

I did a little research to answer the quesiton. Several pages from the W3C are included that explain how tags should be used when we are structuring HTML documents.

• The HTML 4.0 Main Content page ¹
• Using the <em> and <strong> tags ²
• Using the <i> and <b> tags ³

According to these documents, <i> and <b> render (meaning visually display) italics and bold text. <em> and <strong> are called logical tags and are used for symantic changes (changes in meaning) in non-visual representations of our web pages. Italics and boldness are visual concepts and can be used to "mean" several things. Emphasis and strongness have specific meanings for enhancing a passage of content. Since we are in the business of communicating via the web, it is in our benefit, and the benefit of our clients, for us to understand the nuance of each.

Alright then, so we are talking about how each of these approaches to modifying content presentation are supported by screen readers. We’ve read how the W3C recommends we design but what really (add emphasis to the word really) happens?

After searching a bit on Google for which tags are support by screen readers, I came across the following article by Steve Faulkner ⁴ . This author tested two different screen readers, Jaws and Windows Eyes, and found that neither "rendered" differences in content when using the <i>, <b>, <em>, or <strong> tags. Perhaps all this fuss about making our content accessible doesn’t matter because the device vendors aren’t supporting the nuance of meaning anyway. What’s a designer to do?

Faulkner concludes…

"While it is good to know this, it is not a reason to not use these elements to convey meaning. Accessibility is not just about people with vision impairment, it’s about all user’s with disabilites, and web standards is not just about accessibility. This is merely another example where screen reader vendors are not serving their customers well."

I agree, just because particular vendors are not utilizing the tags that have been designed to support nuance of meaning for non-visual rendering devices, it does not mean that we as designers should discontinue their use. Once the device vendors, or at least the ones mentioned in this test, catch up with the needs of their customers, our web pages will already be designed to utilize those technologies. We also don’t know what technologies are coming down the road that will take advantage of them. An artificial intelligence program that can discern emotive changes in content based on tag structure? Who knows. As designers of digital communications, we are served by understanding what tools are in our toolbox. It makes us better craftspersons.

References

1. The HTML 4.0 Main Content page. The World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/cover.html#minitoc
2. Structured text. The World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h-9.2
3. Font style elements. The World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.1
4. Faulkner, Steve (February 28th, 2008). Screen Readers lack emphasis. http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=41

Alright. Let’s file this one under miscellaneous.

My wife and I have a Sears Kenmore Elite Electric Oven. It has a glass top and it is self cleaning. The model number, if it helps, is 911.99003991. We ran the oven through a self clean cycle a couple of days ago and after the cycle was finished, the door would not open. The “Locked Door” text was steadily lit. We let the unit cool down. Still the “Locked Door” text was lit. The door was indeed locked. My wife is a baker. I had a new item to add to my “honey do” list. So I did the next obvious thing in the developed world… I searched for a solution on the web. I’m writing this post for those that try the solution at the URI listed in the following paragraph.

Several articles pointed to this solution from applianceAid.com:
http://www.applianceaid.com/clean-lock.html.

The article suggests several options for troubleshooting this problem. The easiest was to unplug the unit and then plug it back in again. That did not work — the first time. I unplugged the unit, waited several minutes, plugged the unit back in, set the clock, and pulled on the door. Nothing.

Then I had a flash of insight. What if the mechanism is simply stuck and needs a little help? I tried it again. I unplugged the unit, and waited a few minutes. This time however, I proceeded a bit differently. Rather than plugging it back in immediately, I started pushing and pulling the door handle (vigorously). I reasoned that if the mechanism was controlled by a solenoid and depended on electricity to function, then removing the electric current would release the mechanism unless there was a mechanical lock. If the gizmo was simply stuck because of a layer of baked on oil or grease, then jarring it would release it (perhaps). So I jarred it – repeatedly. Not in a maniacal sort of way, but determined. I felt it starting to give way. I felt it open. Success.

Next, I plugged it back in. The “Locked door” message was flashing. I pressed and held the Clear/Off button. The Locked Door text went out.

Yes!!

My wife is now happily baking again. I think we will investigating an alternate approach to cleaning the oven in the future.

I’m seeing many instances where students are providing opinions, definitions, and other data on topics without citing the source(s) of their information. In some cases they don’t seem to understand the necessity. Mashups are common in today’s creative environment. Opinion based commenting is common on discussion forums without regard to citing the origin of the data. Also, some students think that everything is editorial – that they are simply answering a question based on their knowledge without regard to where that information originated. If it’s in their heads, it belongs to them.

Right? Wrong? Who cares? Your reader… that’s who.

In any academic or professional writing it is important to properly cite your resources if you are not the originator of that thought. Why? Because the reader wants to know that what they are reading can be trusted. If you are not an expert on the subject and the information that you are so confidently passing on is coming from another source, you are implying that your source of information is accurate. Maybe your right. Maybe your wrong. Maybe your source has no clue as to what they are talking about.

Sometimes finding the reliable source of information is like playing the old game telephone. One person whispers a sentence into the ear of the person next to them. That person then whispers what they thought they heard into the hear of the next person. After this behavior is repeated several more times, the end person states what they heard. You then compare that information with the original and compare.

Without properly citing a source of information, it is difficult to confidently repeat that data. You are trusting that your source has done the research and can defend their conclusion. Which is fine as long as you understand the limitations of your knowledge and let your reader know that the expertise does not rest in you. It rests in another. And in there lies the power of citation. It allows you to admit your limitations and still use the information for your argument even though you may not have the expertise to thoroughly defend it. You borrow your source’s expertise. Your off the hook – more or less.

Assuming you feel any sense of responsibility for distributing accurate information or have an inclination to help your reader know where the expertise lies (so they can make a reasonable conclusion), a method for accomplishing this is well established. In written communication, properly citing a source depends on the medium in which the source resides; i.e. a book, article, electronic format, or web URI. One accepted method can be found at the following URI (Links to pages on how to format references can be found at the bottom of the page.):

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/01/

Additional Reading

Lamb, Brian (2007), Dr. Mashup or Why Educators Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Remix, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 42, no. 4 (July/August 2007): 12–25, http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/DrMashuporWhyEducatorsSho/44592