Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex2002ans
Quote:
Originally Posted by CubGeek
Oh, that's much simpler. Thank you! Since the stuff I'm working on has a combination of <i> for "internal monologue," and "named things" as well as <em> for word emphasis, this certainly has been a learning experience!  |
 And I don't know if you caught this topic:
where I explained differences between <i> + <em> even further. |
I'm replying here since this is where the conversation happened at the time, but if this makes more sense in that linked topic, lemme know and I'll delete and post it there.
I've run into a condundrum. The author of my current project has several characters who use an "internal monologue," so I've been using the <i> tag for those. For words that need emphasis it's the <em> tag. Simple so far.
However, the author also has words in the internal monologue that need emphasizing... For just visuals I'd take the emphasized word out of the <i> tags and restart the <i> tag after the word:
Quote:
|
Well, Dylan thought to himself, the very least they could do is drop the price of gas a bit.
|
However, if I use the <em> tag for emphasizing the word "least" to ensure that accessibility programs can convey the correct tone/meaning/nuance, the tag italicizes the visual:
Quote:
|
Well, Dylan thought to himself, the very least they could do is drop the price of gas a bit.
|
So, while the accessibility is correct, sighted readers may not have the emphasis conveyed visually.
Would nested <i> and <em> tags like this this be a case for the <strong> tag, instead? That way the sighted readers still get the emphasis (via boldface text) and accessibility readers can convey the audio emphasis?
Quote:
Code:
<i>Well</i>, Dylan thought to himself, <i>the very <strong>least</strong> they could do is drop the price of gas a bit</i>.
Well, Dylan thought to himself, the very least they could do is drop the price of gas a bit.
|