Wandered over here from another LJ, and had an discussion about the things you've recommended. I'm not trying to detract from the advice you've given, but perhaps I could offer some refinements.
The >b</>strong< dichotomy is an interesting one, for two reasons: it may not actually make a difference because screen readers at least in 2008 tests didn't use the strong and em tags anyway (http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=41), and I'd argue that any user-agent which follows the specification to the extent of differentiating between b tag and the strong tag is living in a dream world of candy and fairies where all HTML validates, etc. etc. In other words, if you're writing a screen reader that ignores b tags and only emphasises strong tags in its default settings then I'd say you've done your users a disservice. As a result of these two things, I tend to use the shorter forms anyway.
From an information architecture standpoint - good lord, I've only known that term for six months and already I'm waving it around like a plonker - providing descriptive link text is infinitely better than the title attribute. http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/articles/too-much-accessibility/too-much-accessibility-title-attributes/ is someone else's rant on the topic.
An excellent further reference (in my experience) for your readers is http://diveintoaccessibility.org/
no subject
The >b</>strong< dichotomy is an interesting one, for two reasons: it may not actually make a difference because screen readers at least in 2008 tests didn't use the strong and em tags anyway (http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=41), and I'd argue that any user-agent which follows the specification to the extent of differentiating between b tag and the strong tag is living in a dream world of candy and fairies where all HTML validates, etc. etc. In other words, if you're writing a screen reader that ignores b tags and only emphasises strong tags in its default settings then I'd say you've done your users a disservice. As a result of these two things, I tend to use the shorter forms anyway.
From an information architecture standpoint - good lord, I've only known that term for six months and already I'm waving it around like a plonker - providing descriptive link text is infinitely better than the title attribute. http://www.rnib.org.uk/wacblog/articles/too-much-accessibility/too-much-accessibility-title-attributes/ is someone else's rant on the topic.
An excellent further reference (in my experience) for your readers is http://diveintoaccessibility.org/