Is it ok to use <strong> in place of <b> blindly?
Solution 1:
As others have mentioned using <strong>, <em>, <cite> etc. adds semantics, and this is important because you say something about why you want to emphasize something, and increases the readability of your html, because you know why its in bold.
Furthermore screen readers use the strong tags to make an audible difference when reading it aloud.
Maybe you could think about the audio represenation as a guide. If you would want a difference when read aloud, mark it as <strong> for instance, if not use <b>.
Then there is the issue of rendering: I don't actually know if all browsers will render a <strong> as a bold and if it will stay that way.
So in short: <strong>No</strong>.
Solution 2:
Is it ok to use
<strong>in place of<b>blindly?
No.
To quote Anne van Kesteren (source):
Let me give some contradictory advice. Please do replace
emwithiandstrongwithb. The resulting markup is likely more accurate. Especially with WYSIWYG software it is extremely unlikely they will be used correctly, but also because the notion spread that they are interchangeable with the sole difference being thatstrongandemare semantic a lot of misuse happened. When in doubt, useiandb.
And he’s right, of course. strong and b are not the same. em and i are not the same. Only use strong / em if you want to add semantical emphasis to text.
Solution 3:
<b>, <i>, <tt> are strictly typographical.
By saying typographical, I don't mean visual. I mean semantics expressed by the look. They need additional context to have specific meaning (eg. definition, like:
- text in italics were taken from ...
or relying on typographic convention, like that the text in bold are eye-catchers and the italics mean context change). In typographical conventions bolds and italics are some kind of parenthesis nesting.
(for example [this one has another context])
for example this one has another context
These tags are the port of traditional, printed typography, in which semantics is carried by the specific visual presentation.
As you pointed out, they are considered to be deprecated, but not in XHTML5. Why? I think, mostly that the web content is not only for the e-media. If you print web document, these tags may replace the syntax of some expressions used for example in TeX.
<strong> and <em> are strictly for semantics,
telling how the text should be read and emphasized.
So to recap, none of these tag means the same as other, so they not even should not be used, but may not be used interchangeably, nor substituted. In particular, blindly.
AFIR, Dreamweaver is not the model of the WYSIWYM editor. I have always considered it to be next generation of FrontPage thinking (ease of use and getting things done now, and forget about the future and scalability).
So I understand the surprise here, and your misconception feeling is right :)
Solution 4:
We shouldn't swap b and strong blindly as they have different intended purpose.
<b> and <i> are not presentational elements as per the HTML5 spec. They have a different meaning and purpose. Quoting the HTML5 specs,
The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance, such as key words in a document abstract, product names in a review, or other spans of text whose typical typographic presentation is boldened.
and for the i element,
The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another language, a thought, a ship name, or some other prose whose typical typographic presentation is italicized.
As others have very well clarified, i and em cannot be used interchangeably and so is the case with b and strong.
The usage of i and b for their intended purpose is very rare. (eg. in dialogue scripts, thesis, resumes)
References:
- http://html5doctor.com/i-b-em-strong-element/
- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/text-level-semantics.html#the-i-element