Currently, “bold” and “italic” markup doesn’t actually output bold and italic text (semantically); instead, it outputs strongly emphasized (<strong>) and emphasized (<em>) text. This is completely wrong and semantic markup abuse, since we can’t guarantee that bold text will only be used for strong importance or that italic text will only be used for emphasis. HTML output for this markup should be changed to general-purpose elements (i.e. *%text%* (_%text%_) should be <i>%text%</i>, not <em>%text%</em>, and **%text%** (__%text%__) should be <b>%text%</b>, not <strong>%text%</strong>).
You’ll need to take this up with markdown-it, which is one of the most popular javascript markdown libraries, and follows the CommonMark spec. They know what they’re doing and I’m sure have reasons for rendering it that way.
Edit: https://spec.commonmark.org/0.31.2/#emphasis-and-strong-emphasis
“Strong” and “emphasis” are used for accessibility purposes.
For example, person blind since birth won’t know what “italic” looks like. But they will understand the concept of emphasizing something.
And before you reply to me: I’m talking about compliance standards designed for use throughout the Internet. I’m not just sharing my opinion on this. My opinions are irrelevant. When I work in UX, I follow the standards.
the standards are just a bunch of people’s opinions, if this post suggests something contrary to the standards, that just means it’s a discussion about the standards themselves. it is valid to point out the standards, but to consider them gospel is foolish.
No. They are tested standards, and were created based on extensive data and research.
used for accessibility purposes Screen readers do not and should not care about presentation; abusing semantic markup to indicate through emphasis that something is italic or bold is anti-accessibility.
