Comments on: Design Coding

By: Ralph

Ralph — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:17:05 +0000

Hey folks! Check it out ... the SEO Rapper has a new hit out. Online for Hours

By: HengeMon

HengeMon — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:49:14 +0000

On the other hand, bold is implemented as being bold text so you know that if the device or browser supports it, your text will be bold. With strong you don't know how the browser could have implemented it, so you need to exactly set the stylesheet information to match bold. Some kind of exotic device could display strong elements as italic or underlined, so you need to actively set in the CSS you don't want that. Furthermore you don't know what else of weird things the device may do to the strong element. I'm not saying that bold is better than strong in semantically correct HTML, I'm just saying you're more certain of what will happen with your layout and design if you use bold instead of strong.

By: Berae McClary

Berae McClary — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:44:34 +0000

Bold is blurrier than strong.

By: R Pyle

R Pyle — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:01:12 +0000

I could probably understand more of the rap if it didn't have that horrendous bass line behind it. But what I did understand was solid coding.

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:55:48 +0000

And btw, Neatorama is coded old-style. With tables (within tables!) and it ranks fine ...

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:54:29 +0000

OPP? No, OOP! (obscure?)

By: aware

aware — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:34:16 +0000

forwarded to a friend, and this is his answer for strong vs. bolld:

"Strong vs. bold – strong is a semantic element. It can be interpreted by different technologies to provide the appropriate emphasis for the media used to deliver the content e.g. pitch change in a screen reader [voice output for blind users], or darker larger stroked characters in print.

Bold is a print only related element. Bold is how strong is implemented in print. Semantically, bold should not be interpreted by a screen reader…but in practice it is treated as the strong element.

It’s a nuance standardista thing. In html I always use strong, it’s semantically correct and whatever media is used to provide the content to the user the emphasis will be correct."

By: Agnostic Anarch

Agnostic Anarch — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:13:18 +0000

He explains why bold is better than strong in the song! And yeah... this is Nerdcore! I hope he tours with MC Frontalot on the next tour!

~AA

By: kaddar

kaddar — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:55:39 +0000

I wonder if this is considered nerdcore?

By: clinton labombard

clinton labombard — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:21:05 +0000

Come to the dark side, my children. Learn to code by hand with a text editor. Learn to combine PHP and MySQL with DHTML and /you/ will be strong.

By: ted

ted — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:01:59 +0000

tee-hee.
More entertaining than I thought it would be.

By: Miss Cellania

Miss Cellania — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:46:05 +0000

Thanks, kjguioyo8t! That makes sense to me.

By: Edward

Edward — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:32:28 +0000

The next time some tight-fisted, "my son can make websites" client asks me for advice, I am going to send him this video. It is perfect, he will understand neither the genre nor the subject matter.

Oh, yeah. I should add: Dude knows design. Note the whitespace before and after the text, the general lack of clutter as well as the subtle message on his shirt.

By: kjguioyo8t

kjguioyo8t — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:25:00 +0000

Strong is a heuristic, bold is a font property. Good html is supposed to be as general as possible so it can be displayed on as many different types of devices as possible. Some devices might not support bold text but there might be some way to emphasize text to support the use of the strong key.