Why, Sigil, Why? And can I change you?

[MicroDrie]

From the previous post it can be concluded that everyone defines their own goal slightly differently and based on that also makes a slightly different choice of the available specific resources <i> or <em>. There are also others that say if we can use <em> for Italics, then we can use <i> Tag to display an icon of, say, the font Awesome version 4.7 in an EPUB.

[phillipgessert]

Originally Posted by MicroDrie

From the previous post it can be concluded that everyone defines their own goal slightly differently and based on that also makes a slightly different choice of the available specific resources <i> or <em>. There are also others that say if we can use <em> for Italics, then we can use <i> Tag to display an icon of, say, the font Awesome version 4.7 in an EPUB.

I think in that scenario, it might make some sense to instead use a span for an icon like that. While <i> "only" means italics, it also does specifically mean that. Whereas <span> means basically nothing in particular, so no strong argument against using it for an icon that I can think of.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by phillipgessert

I think in that scenario, it might make some sense to instead use a span for an icon like that. While <i> "only" means italics, it also does specifically mean that. Whereas <span> means basically nothing in particular, so no strong argument against using it for an icon that I can think of.

FWIW, vis: everybody "does their own thing," we had a book that passed 3 different international standard accessibility checks, right?

But did it pass this one college's? Noooooooooooooooooooo, it didn't. I forget now what it was, that they were all up in the high hairy eyeball about,but we had to add something that made NO sense, to pass their internal "accessibility check." It took myriad passes with this custom-designed, in-house tool.

You cannot assume that using Standard A will mean that everybody and their brother will sign off on those particular sets of standards.

@fdwojo: And as far as "since you make your own eBooks," hey, that's what everybody here is doing. Some of us, for other folks, too.

All we can ALL do is muddle along, doing the best we can with inconsistent standards which are then even more inconsistently applied and adopted.

In my humble opinion, i ≠ em and b ≠ strong. When you're having something read aloud to you, they are different.

Offered FWIW.

Hitch

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

True - as the thread linked by Tex mentions, there are many reasons why you might want <em> instead of <i>.

[...]

So… if you only need a visual italic (like in a list of references) then <i> works fine. But if it is supposed to mean something then you want the semantically correct <em>.

Yes.

So, <i> and <em> for example:

<p>In <i>Example Book Title</i>, I stated: “We will <em>never</em> give in to their demands.”</p>

• <i> = Visually italics.
  
  • Like a book title or name of a newspaper.
• <em> = Words that are actually emphasis.
  
  • You're speaking the word "never" differently.

Then take <b> for example. I was just working on a book with an interview:

<p><b>Person A:</b> This is a question?</p>

<p><b>Person B:</b> This is an answer.</p>

<p><b>A:</b> Next question?</p>

• <b> = Visually bold.

The "person speaking" is definitely not <strong>, because it's not super important (or emphasized) or anything... it's just a visual decision.

So some books might even use <i> there instead:

<p><i>Person A:</i> This is a question?</p>

Anyway, you can read through the 2 big threads for a ton more details and examples.

Complete Side Note: On more easily marking up <i> vs. <em>... there's still the "Italics Lists" idea (which I wrote about a few months ago in "What Features or Tools does Sigil Still Need Yet?" (Post #163)).

If you had a nice, searchable/sortable list of all italics in the book, then you could easily mark which ones should go from <i> -> <em> or <em> -> <i>.

It would be the perfect mashup of Spellcheck Lists + Diap's Toolbag.

Originally Posted by Turtle91

Sorry, I thought I had linked to the Accessibility Publishing Database website in my previous post. Here it is for anyone who cares.

They have a nice explanation on what the differences are between i/b/em/strong and when each should be used...they also talk about the html5 specs briefly.

Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by phillipgessert

I think in that scenario, it might make some sense to instead use a span for an icon like that. While <i> "only" means italics, it also does specifically mean that. Whereas <span> means basically nothing in particular, so no strong argument against using it for an icon that I can think of.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Hitch

FWIW, vis: everybody "does their own thing," we had a book that passed 3 different international standard accessibility checks, right?

But did it pass this one college's? Noooooooooooooooooooo, it didn't. I forget now what it was, that they were all up in the high hairy eyeball about,but we had to add something that made NO sense, to pass their internal "accessibility check." It took myriad passes with this custom-designed, in-house tool.

You cannot assume that using Standard A will mean that everybody and their brother will sign off on those particular sets of standards.

I'd like to hear more details on this no-sense nonsense!

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by Hitch

In my humble opinion, i ≠ em and b ≠ strong. When you're having something read aloud to you, they are different.

OK. So e.g. I italicise New York Times but don't emphasise it vocally.

However, I've never seen a commercial book that made that distinction.
Either they use i throughout, or em throughout, for everything: emphasis, book titles, headings, foreign words, etc.
Most of the big corporate ones used em, but if so never used i.

And none of my clients has ever mentioned this distinction to me. Certainly none of the authors have.

And if I was making a text-to-speech app, it would be foolish to expect the text to be coded according to this rule, because hardly any is. It would have to either emphasise all italics, or have an exception list of commonly italicised words.

Anyway, I make books to read and look good on paper or screen.
if someone wants to run it through a TTS engine, good luck to them. They can pay me if they want me to prep the text for that.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by AlanHK

OK. So e.g. I italicise New York Times but don't emphasise it vocally.

However, I've never seen a commercial book that made that distinction.

This was partially discussed in those 2 previous large threads on the topic.

Yes, most people just go for the easy/quick: all <i> or all <em>... (or you have no-good tools/workflows which force markup fully one way or the other.)

Although much rarer, there are programs/tools/people that generate more semantically correct HTML.

Like Citation Management Systems (Zotero, Mendeley) generate proper <i> + <em> + <b>.

There's also lots of other alternate workflows, like: DOCBook->HTML, LaTeX->HTML, or JATS (an XML format used in journal articles).

Publishers/authors will mark italics/emphasis/bold in their books properly, so they could more easily swap citation styles, mathematical styles, etc.:

• A journal article in a journal may follow a different citation style than republishing it as a chapter in a book.
  
  • Some citation styles use "Vol. 1, No. 2", others may use "<b>1</b>(2)".
• In physics, a vector may be written as a <b>i</b> letter. Other styles may use a "hat" (î).

Originally Posted by AlanHK

And none of my clients has ever mentioned this distinction to me. Certainly none of the authors have.

Doubt they have a clue. But you, as the ebook creator, should be the knowledgable one.

They probably won't know one thing about <blockquote>, <h1>, <table> + <thead>, alt tags, or EPUB3 footnote markup either... but you'd want to mark all this stuff to the best of your ability (and teach them about it) to help future readers/conversions/tools.

* * *

Properly marked headings for example.

I've discussed how HTML from my ebooks gets converted/reposted as articles on a website.

After publishing ~100 ebooks, the web admin decided to add a Javascript TOC. Now, because I had all my headings marked properly, poof, a reader on the site can jump through the web-version similar to an EPUB's TOC + the Javascript TOC highlights where you're located in the book.

(Blind/visually-impaired readers using JAWS/NVDA would've already been able to navigate using headings! And now sighted readers can now too! )

Because I followed standards + laid the groundwork... the tools/enhancements will come.

Originally Posted by AlanHK

Anyway, I make books to read and look good on paper or screen.

if someone wants to run it through a TTS engine, good luck to them. They can pay me if they want me to prep the text for that.

If you mark the:

• Headings
  
  • using <h1>-><h6>, NOT <p class="heading">.
• Paragraphs
  
  • using <p>, NOT <div class="p">.
• Italics
  
  • using <i> or <em>, NOT <span class="italics">.
• Tables
  
  • using <table>, NOT <img>.
• Proper lang + xml:lang
  
  • Mark the Chinese as Chinese!

then you'll be most of the way there.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Headings using <h1>-><h6>, NOT <p class="heading">

H tags are useless for headings: they were designed for technical documentation "2.1.1 Blah blah" and not for books.

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

A journal article in a journal may follow a different citation style than republishing it as a chapter in a book.

If you're doing scientific articles in epub, all respect to you, but that's a pretty esoteric market.

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Doubt they have a clue. But you, as the ebook creator, should be the knowledgable one.

I meant, they have never discussed repurposing the text (except from print to ebook, or for webpages, which is trivial) or converting to audio automatically -- for audiobooks, they use a human reader, which is by far the best result.

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

They probably won't know one thing about <blockquote>, <h1>, <table> + <thead>, alt tags, or EPUB3 footnote markup either... but you'd want to mark all this stuff to the best of your ability (and teach them about it) to help future readers/conversions/tools.

They just care what it looks like. And I have never, in 30 years, had an author who was able to use Word styles usefully. Trying to educate them about XML is just unthinkable.

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

If you mark the:

• Headings
  
  • using <h1>-><h6>, NOT <p class="heading">.
• Paragraphs
  
  • using <p>, NOT <div class="p">.
• Italics
  
  • using <i> or <em>, NOT <span class="italics">.
• Tables
  
  • using <table>, NOT <img>.

then you'll be most of the way there.

Yes, of course.
I learnt HTML back in the 90s, did it for years before I learned any CSS, so I use all those as appropriate. And I much prefer e.g. just <h2> for chapter heads than a p or div class; not least because it more or less works with no CSS and lets me generate a TOC in Sigil.

[AlanHK]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

H tags are useless for headings: they were designed for technical documentation "2.1.1 Blah blah" and not for books.

So, you don't use Sigil's "Generate Table of contents"?

Anyway, chapters I use h2. Parts, h1. Subheads h3.
Works for fiction as well as anything else.
Then click and in 30 seconds I have a presentable TOC.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

H tags are useless for headings: they were designed for technical documentation "2.1.1 Blah blah" and not for books.

Hogwash.

[Doitsu]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Hogwash.

Hogwash indeed.

Originally Posted by DAISY

Headings are one of the primary means of navigation for users of assistive technologies.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Hogwash.

Originally Posted by Doitsu

Hogwash indeed.

And may I add in my HOGWASH, too? What utter nonsense! "H tags are useless for headings." Sheesh.


Hitch

[Notjohn]

To me,it's a distinction without a difference. I prefer i and b because they do what they say, while em and strong are ambiguous. Most writers emphasize with italics, and reserve bold for the most minor sort of breakhead.

Lots of html is nutty. For example, the claimed distinction between an apostrophe and a single close-quote. One shrugs one's shoulders and gets on with it.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

To me,it's a distinction without a difference. I prefer i and b because they do what they say, while em and strong are ambiguous. Most writers emphasize with italics, and reserve bold for the most minor sort of breakhead.

Lots of html is nutty. For example, the claimed distinction between an apostrophe and a single close-quote. One shrugs one's shoulders and gets on with it.

I would suggest that shows a complete lack of awareness about people with accessibility issues. I was there not too long ago, then I was forced to become aware… and now I care. Don’t feel lonely though - there are a lot of people that are unaware and don’t care.

The distinction is that the reading devices/apps can, and do, treat them (b/i, em/strong) differently. So, as a professional, it would be incumbent upon us to do things the right way, rather than not.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

I would suggest that shows a complete lack of awareness about people with accessibility issues. I was there not too long ago, then I was forced to become aware… and now I care. Don’t feel lonely though - there are a lot of people that are unaware and don’t care.

The distinction is that the reading devices/apps can, and do, treat them (b/i, em/strong) differently. So, as a professional, it would be incumbent upon us to do things the right way, rather than not.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Or, snagged 'em from my fingers, as it were.

H